ISSUES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION

IN A NORTHWEST FLORIDA, TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:

A QUALITATIVE STUDY

by

Steven Ronald Schubert

Ed.S., University of West Florida, 1998

M.A., University of West Florida, 1996

B.S., Iowa State University, 1974

A dissertation submitted to the Department of Professional and Community Leadership

College of Professional Studies
The University of West Florida
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

2009
Doctor of Education

ii
© 2009 Steven Ronald Schubert
The dissertation of Steven Ronald Schubert is approved:

_______________________________________________ __________________
Robin M. Largue, Ed.D., Committee Member Date

_______________________________________________ __________________
Keith W. Whinnery, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

_______________________________________________ __________________
Daniel J. Kaczynski, Ph.D., Committee Chair Date

Accepted for the Department:

_______________________________________________ __________________
Thomas J. Kramer, Ph.D., Chair Date

Accepted for the University:

_______________________________________________ __________________
Richard S. Podemski, Ph.D., Dean of Graduate Studies Date
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the incredible patience, support, and latitude that my

committee members provided me in seeing this dissertation through to finality. Dr.

Kaczynski’s encouragement and accessibility to provide guidance and timely suggestions

regarding the finer points of qualitative research and analysis was crucial in motivating

me to continue, despite numerous outside challenges along the way. Dr. Whinnery’s ESE

expertise was also critical in providing insight into the newly legislated Response to

Intervention process; and Dr. Largue, bless her heart, was faithful throughout the ordeal

of a dissertation.

Needless to say, my family is as pleased as I am to know the dissertation is finally

finished and that we can move on with life. I want them to understand how grateful I am

for their patience and understanding of how much this means to me professionally and

personally.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................................iv

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vii

ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................viii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1
A. Role of Researcher.................................................................................7
B. Study Focus..........................................................................................10
C. Definition of Terms..............................................................................10

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...................................................................16

A. Low Achieving Students and Students with Disabilities.....................17
B. Response to Intervention.....................................................................25
C. Summary..............................................................................................30

CHAPTER III. METHOD.................................................................................................35

A. Materials..............................................................................................41
B. Design and Procedure..........................................................................41

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS.................................................................................................45

A. Analytic Method..................................................................................46
B. Findings...............................................................................................46
1. Relevant Themes.............................................................................46
2. Relevant Themes in the Focus Groups............................................47
a. Theme 1: A lack of trained parents and teachers impedes
the IST.........................................................................................47
b. Theme 2: A lack of parental involvement is a significant
impediment to the IST.................................................................48
c. Theme 3: A lack of resources is an impediment to the
IST process..................................................................................50
d. Theme 4: A lack of the implementation of various strategies
can be impedimentary to the IST............................................... 51
e. Theme 5: Insufficient time impedes the IST.............................. 52
f. Theme 6: A lack of additional assistance impedes the IST........ 53
3. Relevant Themes in the Interviews................................................ 57
a. Theme 1: The lack of parental involvement presents the
largest impediment to the IST.................................................... 57

v
 b. Theme 2: The requirement of documentation impedes
the IST......................................................................................... 57
c. Theme 3: Some characteristics of the system impede
the IST........................................................................................ 58
4. Other Impediments Mentioned....................................................... 60
5. Similarities and Differences Between the Themes......................... 61
C. Summary..............................................................................................63

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................66
A. Findings...............................................................................................67
1. Relevant Themes in the Focus Groups...........................................67
2. Impediments with Regard to Training............................................68
3. Impediments with Regard to Parental Involvement...................... 69
4. Impediments with Regard to Materials.......................................... 70
5. Impediments with Regard to Strategies to Implement................... 70
6. Impediments with Regard to Additional Assistance...................... 71
7. Impediments with Regard to Insufficient Time in the
Classroom...................................................................................... 71
8. Relevant Themes in the Interviews................................................ 71
B. Potential Significance of the Study......................................................73
C. Limitations and Delimitations.............................................................73
D. Conclusions.........................................................................................74
E. Recommendations for Future Study....................................................76
F. Final Researcher Observations.............................................................76

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................78

APPENDIXES ................................................................................................................102
A. Informed Consent for Proposed RTI Research..................................103
B. Focus Group #1 Guiding Questions...................................................106
C. Focus Group #2 Guiding Questions...................................................111
D. Follow-Up Interviews Guiding Questions.........................................113
E. NVivo 7™ Data Table........................................................................115

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of Focus Group Themes................................................................................54

vii
 ABSTRACT

ISSUES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION

IN A NORTHWEST FLORIDA, TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY

Steven Ronald Schubert

This research, conducted in a Northwest Florida Title I elementary school,

focused on implementation issues regarding the district’s recently adopted Response to

Intervention (RTI) process. The purpose of this study was to answer the question: “What

experiences do school-based professionals have with the newly implemented RTI

process?” This study further focused on RTI implementation issues as teachers

endeavored to apply RTI in an effort to improve instructional delivery practices to low-

achieving students. The determination of the implementation issues and the explanation

of the teachers’ experiences were done through a qualitative content analysis of focus

groups, document review, and follow up interviews. Relevant implementation themes

include (a) training, (b) parental involvement, (c) materials, (d) strategies to implement,

(e) additional assistance, (f) sufficient time in classroom, (g) RTI documentation, and (h)

characteristics of RTI. The results of this study should be used to further determine the

effectiveness of the process used to implement RTI.

viii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In 1983, the publication of A Nation At Risk: The Imperative For Educational

Reform by the National Commission on Excellence in Education challenged states to

establish standards-based reform. Then, in 1994, the passage of the Improving America’s

Schools Act (IASA) required states to establish demanding content and performance

standards, implement accurate assessment of all students’ performance against those

standards, and hold schools and districts accountable for student achievement. To that

end, states and school districts developed assessments, standards, performance reporting,

and some consequences of poor performance. Still, these efforts, during the mid and late

1990s, were disparate and often inconsistent with the intent of IASA (Goertz, 2005).

Passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was intended, in part, to rectify some of

these inconsistencies. Now, under No Child Left Behind, the federal government’s role in

the standardized testing process is greatly expanded. States are now required to test more,

use more consistent and ambitious standards, and establish serious sanctions for schools

that fail to meet these goals (Carson, 2002; Goertz; Goertz & Duffy, 2003). While the

battle for and against No Child Left Behind is far from over (Berlak, 2005; Harris &

Herrington, 2006; Hess, 2005; Mayers, 2006; National Education Association, 2006;

Parkison, 2009), states appear to have supported No Child Left Behind (Berkeley,

Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Jennings & Rentner, 2006) and have developed

1
uniform accountability systems centered on content and performance standards and

focusing attention on subgroup performance and achievement gaps (Goertz). Florida’s

response to IASA and No Child Left Behind (Carson) was the development of the Florida

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT).

The FCAT is uniquely designed to test Florida students’ mastery of the grade level

expectations, which are based on Florida’s Sunshine State Standards in reading, writing,

math, and science (Florida Department of Education, 2005). At the elementary school

level, the focus of this research, the FCAT is administered statewide to grades three

through five every spring over a 2-week period. These same students also take the

reading and math portions of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced standardized test

(Harcourt Educational Measurement, 2000) as a comparison against nationally

standardized norms in these areas. However, during the 2009 testing period, Florida will

not administer the Stanford 9 because of a serious budget crisis. Whether this decision

becomes permanent remains to be seen. Writing is tested at the fourth grade and science

at the fifth grade level using Florida’s FCAT Writes and FCAT Science tests.

Kindergarten through third-grade students, and fourth- or fifth-grade students retained in

their current grade level (Assessment and Accountability Act, 2006), take a Dynamic

Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills test three times yearly as a method of formative

assessment of specific targeted skills. Finally, in fall of 2006, kindergarten students also

began taking the Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener entry exam (in place of the

School Readiness Uniform Screening System exam) to determine their existent

proficiencies and identify emergent skills in need of focus.

2
 The FCAT is considered a high-stakes test as performance results can have serious

consequences for students and schools (Florida Department of Education, 2005). For

third-grade students, failure to perform adequately or simply not taking the reading

portion of the FCAT means automatic retention for up to 2 years (Assessment and

Accountability Act, 2006). For schools, the A+ Plan, initiated in 1999 during Governor

Jeb Bush’s term, was, and remains, Florida’s accountability plan. Each elementary,

middle, and high school in the state earns a letter grade (A-F) based upon all their

students’ performance on the FCAT (Florida Department of Education, 2006a; Olson,

2005). In addition to academic achievement data, high school graduation rates are

factored into an overall grade for secondary schools. Of note, the amount of improvement

made by the lower quartile stability subgroup, often termed the low-achievers, over the

previous year carries significant weight in determining a school’s grade. Decreasing by

10% the number of targeted students, including minority and lower quartile low-

achieving students, not scoring at proficiency can even earn a school Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) through “Safe Harbor” status (Florida Department of Education, 2006b).

Low performing and failing schools face economic sanctions and, at the very

least, the careers and placements of administrators and teachers are subject to review. In

1998, Florida established the controversial School Recognition Award. This program

financially rewards schools that improve significantly or demonstrate sustained high

performance (Carson, 2002; Florida Department of Education, 2005).

Also, parents of students at schools that do not make AYP may demand their

children attend a different school that made AYP (DeBray, 2005) or remain at their

district’s school and receive state funded, private, Supplemental Education Services after

3
hours at their school or even at home (Assessment and Accountability, 2006; No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001).

In October 2007, the teachers’ union in this Northwest Florida school district

overwhelmingly approved a teacher performance and monetary incentive package. This

merit-pay package provides participating teachers a potential financial incentive based in

part on student performance. This merit pay may provide additional incentive for teachers

to improve all student performance, even the low-achieving stability cohort.

Children who are referred to as low achieving, with statistical incident rates

between 23-33% of the student population (Francis et al., 2005; Gadeyne, Ghesquiere, &

Onghena, 2004; Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008; Roscigno,

Tomaskovic-Devey, & Crowley, 2006), are generally characterized as students who

struggle to maintain satisfactory academic progress in the general education classroom. In

Northwest Florida, low-achieving students were historically referred to Child Study

Teams (CST). At the elementary school level, these teams included the student’s teacher,

guidance counselor, possibly an administrator, an intervention specialist, and one or more

parents or guardians. During these meetings, specific interventions, normally classroom-

based, were discussed and agreed upon. Effects of the interventions were documented

and reviewed at subsequent CST meetings, nominally 4 to 6 weeks apart. If CST

interventions failed to produce desired results, the referral process could then advance,

contingent upon parental consent, to the next stage, eligibility testing for exceptional

student education services. Based upon the often controversial results of these complex,

lengthy (lasting several months or more, depending upon parental authorization, passing

of eye and hearing exams, and child attendance) quantitative evaluations, some low-

4
achieving students eventually qualified for special education (ESE) services; most did not

(Ysseldyke, 2005). However, effective fall 2006 in this Northwest Florida county, the

Response to Intervention (RTI) model (termed Instructional Support Team [IST] by this

Northwest Florida county) replaced the traditional CST process.

RTI is, in essence, a form of dynamic, formative assessment that, according to its

proponents, will assist educators in designing reading interventions early enough

(Crockett & Gillespie, 2008; Kavale et al., 2008; O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005) at

the school-based setting, with the intention to intercede ESE placement in later years.

According to RTI proponents, children responsive to the more intensive and early

intervention instruction at the lower tiers are returned to their regular education

classrooms where practitioners continue to monitor their progress (Barth et al., 2008;

Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche, 2004). Students who are unresponsive

may qualify for special education by virtue of their unresponsiveness or receive a

comprehensive evaluation to determine ESE eligibility (National Research Center on

Learning Disabilities, 2007; Schatschneider, Wagner, & Crawford, 2008; Vaughn, Linan-

Thompson, & Hickman, 2003).

As mentioned, low-achieving students struggle to achieve adequately in the

classroom and generally comprise the lower quartile of students per grade level (Gadeyne

et al., 2004; Roscigno et al., 2006). While most of the formally tested low-achieving

students score with IQs in the low to borderline-low range (70-89), some score in the

normal or average range (90-109). However, only a small percentage of the low-

achieving students eventually qualify for ESE services under the Educable Mentally

Handicapped (EMH) or Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) umbrella because of IQs

5
that score above 70 for the EMH program (Vanauker-Ergle, 2003) or below the

IQ/achievement/processing discrepancy requirement for the SLD program(Ysseldyke,

2005). Even though many researchers dispute using the IQ/discrepancy model to identify

students with SLD (Forness, Keogh, MacMillan, Kavale, & Gresham, 1998; Francis et

al., 2005; Kavale et al., 2008) it is the only model historically and currently authorized

for use during the transition period between the current discrepancy-based model and RTI

in this Northwest Florida school district (Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). Therefore, despite a

documented need many low-achieving students fail to meet the discrepancy-based

model’s requirements. These students remain in their general education classrooms

without ESE support. Even with the state’s Class Size Reduction Requirements (2003)

that provide greater teacher focus on fewer students, these low-achieving students

continue to struggle or fail.

Research has established a direct correlation between low-achieving students and

incidents of school failures and dropouts, poor performance on standardized tests, violent

offenders (Agnew, Matthews, Bucher, Welcher, & Keyes, 2008; Beyers, Loeber,

Wikstrom, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2001; Keels, 2008; Milne & Plourde, 2006), gang and

hate group members, substance abuse, incarceration, unemployment or

underemployment, unwed teen mothers, and other systemic societal ills (Boon, 2008;

Hill, Howell, Hawkins, & Pearson, 1999; Molina & Pelham, 2001; Robinson, Price,

Thompson, & Schmalzried, 1998). In spite of the human and financial burden these

behaviors place on our society, the amount of research specifically targeting these low-

achieving students’ struggles in the classroom is limited. Instead, research tends to focus

on low-achieving ESE children (Bear, Minke, Griffin, & Deemer, 1998; Molina &

6
Pelham; Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002; Ysseldyke, Nelson, Christenson, & Johnson, 2004) or

specific minority groups (Fisher, 2005; Mickelson & Greene, 2006). Research

specifically targeting other characteristics or impediments to success of this low-

achieving group is lacking (Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, Yen, & Svenson, 2004; Roscigno et

al., 2006; Vanauker-Ergle, 2003; Wu & Qi, 2006). Additionally, research as to the

effectiveness of the only recently implemented RTI process in Florida is either

nonexistent or, at best, ongoing (Barth et al., 2008; Deshler, Mellard, Tollefson, & Byrd,

2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005). As RTI is still in its first years of implementation in

this school district, it is probably too early to establish a direct link between RTI and

student performance on FCAT.

Role of Researcher

This researcher is currently an educational leader at the proposed school of

research. Reasons supporting the decision to conduct research at this school were varied

and involved philosophical and pragmatic issues regarding student performance and

teacher acceptance of the RTI paradigm shift. Of note, as the educational leader at this

elementary school and responsible for teacher evaluations, a keen awareness existed in

order to prevent potential conflict between administrator duties, researcher objectives,

and teacher perspectives in order to minimize conflict of interest and researcher bias.

This researcher’s career as an educator has its philosophical roots in special

education teaching children with behavioral disabilities. Preparation for this challenge

included specialized training in behavior modification. These skills proved useful during

the daily struggle to provide step-by-step instruction, consequences, rewards, and shaping

of desired social and academic skills to elementary and middle school-aged children with
7
emotional handicaps. This behaviorist approach provided the backbone for classroom

management during the first decade or so of teaching ESE students while pursuing

additional post-graduate degrees in educational administration. During that time, this

researcher was assigned as Intervention Specialist (IS) in charge of an ESE department

serving nearly 200 elementary children with a wide range of disabilities. As an IS serving

the needs of a large number of teachers and their students’ widely varying needs, the

realization that strict behaviorism, which considers all children to be highly malleable

beings that can be molded into whatever type of person the school system desires (Bos &

Vaughn, 1994; Evans, Evans, & Schmid, 1989; Kauffman, 1993; Vann, Schubert, &

Rogers, 2000), was a methodology that was no longer singularly germane.

Experience as an IS, then as Assistant Principal, and now as Educational Leader at

an elementary school provided reflective opportunities to reconsider ascribing completely

to the strict behavioralist’s philosophical approach to educating children. According to

Dewey, reflective thinking helps teachers to “clarify their purposes, focus their methods,

and ultimately improve the quality of their teaching” (Tauer & Tate, 1998, p. 143).

During this process, a closer aligning with Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy of education

emerged. Dewey felt that education is a necessity of life and needed for a civilized

society to exist. Additionally, education must promote understanding and intelligent

action (not just training or shaping). Dewey felt that individuals should be educated as

social beings capable of participating in and directing their own social affairs. He also felt

educators should be aware of the interests and motivations of children, as well as the

environments from which they come. Education should provide for opportunities to live

and learn by experience through reflective thinking. Equally important are opportunities

8
to develop character and social skills, understand consequences of actions, use a

diversified curriculum with a solid core of subjects, provide limits for behavior, and

understand that while not all children arrive at school with the same experiences and

abilities, all children can learn (Ozmon & Craver, 1995). Based on this evolving

philosophy on education, couched in Dewey’s disequilibrium theory and its key concern

as to how children face and overcome obstacles in their developmental path (Farmer,

2008; Mortola, 2001), the realization that RTI might significantly increase the success

rate of low-achieving students in the school setting catalyzed an even greater desire to

conduct this research.

Therefore, an understanding of how the implementation process for RTI

proceeded during its first years became critical. Was RTI living up to its potential, or are

there issues negatively affecting implementation that simply added to the list of

impediments facing schools serving low-achieving students and put additional stress on

faculty and parents (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004; Jeynes, 2005; Jones &

Egley, 2006; Lebedina-Manzoni, 2004; Molfese, Modglin, & Molfese, 2003; Robicheau,

Haar, & Palladino, 2008; Roscigno et al., 2006; Samuels, 2008)? This research is

important as it is one of the first to address RTI implementation from teachers’

perspectives in a Title I school. In this era of high-stakes testing, academic achievement is

the ultimate topic of concern for administrators, guidance counselors, teachers, parents,

and especially the students themselves (Marshall, 2003). Failure to properly implement

RTI may carry severe short- and long-term consequences for an entire school and,

unfortunately, for students by failing to provide early, research-based intervention that

could help them learn to read.

9
 Study Focus

For the purpose of this research the focus of the study was “What experiences do

school-based professionals have with the newly implemented RTI process?” Specifically,

this study explored RTI implementation issues and perceived impediments as teachers

endeavored to apply RTI with fidelity in an effort to improve instructional delivery

practices to low-achieving students. Terms used throughout this study are defined in the

next section.

Definition of Terms

Adequate Yearly Progress. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

requires states to evaluate the performance of all students in all public schools in order to

determine whether schools, school districts, and the state have made AYP. Florida’s

approved accountability plan uses the same FCAT test and definitions of “grade level” as

does the A+ Plan and includes specific criteria for determining and reporting AYP for all

schools. In brief, making AYP means that, in general, students are making a year’s worth

of academic growth in 1 year as measured against Florida’s Sunshine State Standards.

Not making adequate yearly progress does not mean that a school is failing. It means that

the school has not met a certain standard for at least 1 group of students, specifically, the

lower-quartile group or the minority group. These measures include the percentage of

students scoring at or above proficiency on FCAT in reading, mathematics, and writing.

Also, graduation rates and whether or not the school tested enough students in each

subgroup are factored into the school’s overall grade. School districts are responsible for

identifying Title I schools that do not make AYP in two consecutive years as schools in

need of improvement. Since 2003, requirements for school improvement apply to Title I
10
schools that received a performance grade of F during a school year and did not make

AYP in the following year. Students attending these schools are eligible for public school

choice options and a variety of supplemental education services for the next school year.

A+ Plan for Education. Approved by the Florida Legislature in 1999, the A+ Plan

for Education expanded Florida’s statewide assessment program to include the

assessment of reading and mathematics in grades 3-10, a science assessment (FCAT

Science), and a system for calculating the academic growth of each student over time. It

also required students to pass the Grade 10 FCAT Sunshine State Standards in reading

and mathematics in order to graduate from high school (Florida Department of

Education, 2005).

Class Size Reduction Requirements. Section 1 of Article IX of the Florida State

Constitution was amended in November 2002 establishing, by the beginning of the

2010-2011 school year, the maximum number of students in core-curricula courses

assigned to a teacher in each of the following three grade groupings: (a) Prekindergarten

through grade 3, 18 students; (b) grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and (c) grades 9

through 12, 25 students. The Legislature enacted SB-30A specifically implementing the

reduction of the average number of students in each classroom by at least two students

per year beginning with the 2003-2004 fiscal year until the maximum number of students

per classroom does not exceed the 2010-2011 maximum.

Child Study Team. The CST is a team consisting of educational professionals from

a variety of backgrounds. These teams generally consist of, but are not limited to,

principals, teachers, ESE representatives, social workers, and school psychologists.

Whenever a teacher identifies a student as struggling academically or behaviorally, a

11
referral is made to the CST. The team then meets and decides what action needs to be

taken in order to help the child be more successful in the classroom. In Florida, the CST

team has been replaced by the RTI process. Detailed CST recommended structure,

timelines, and goals are the subject of the Florida Department of Education (2004) Rule

Implementation Brief.

Cohort. A cohort is a group of individuals having a statistical factor in common in

a demographic study. For the purpose of this research, a cohort of students refers to the

group of students enrolled in a school during the first and second FTE count and who

take the FCAT tests at that school.

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. These are a set of standardized,

individually administered measures of early literacy development. They are designed to

be short (1 minute) fluency measures used to regularly monitor the development of pre-

reading and early reading skills.

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. The FCAT consists of two types of tests:

norm-referenced tests in reading and math, which compare the achievement of Florida

students with that of their peers nationwide; and criterion-referenced tests in reading,

math, science, and writing, which measure student progress toward meeting the Sunshine

State Standards benchmarks. The FCAT is administered to students in grades 3-11

(Florida Department of Education, 2005).

FCAT Norm Referenced Test. The FCAT Norm Referenced Test provides

information to help ensure that Florida students are keeping pace with their peers

nationally. Comparing Florida students to those around the nation requires that the norm-

referenced test not be too closely aligned with the curriculum of any one state. Florida

12
currently uses the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition (Florida Department of

Education, 2005). Florida’s legislature voted to eliminate the norm-referenced test for the

2009 testing cycle because of budget constraints and may eventually eliminate this test

entirely at all grade levels. No replacement test is under consideration for those grades

where FCAT is not administered. Teachers will have to rely entirely on curriculum-based

assessments to provide information on adequate student progression in the classroom.

FCAT Science. The A+ Plan for Education passed by the Florida Legislature in

1999 required a science assessment for students in grades 5, 8, and 10. The first reporting

of these scores took place in May of 2003. Then, beginning in March 2005, FCAT

Science was administered in grade 11 instead of grade 10 to give educators an additional

year to prepare the students (Florida Department of Education, 2005).

FCAT Writing. FCAT Writing is administered to students in grades 4, 8, and 10 in

February each year. This test provides students with an essay prompt that requires either a

narrative or expository response (Florida Department of Education, 2005).

Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener. In 2006, the Dynamic Indicators of

Basic Early Literacy Skills was first administered to assess the readiness of each child for

kindergarten. The test includes a subset of the Early Childhood Observation System and

the first two measures of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills for

kindergarten (Letter Naming Fluency and Initial Sound Fluency) to gather information on

a child’s development in emergent literacy.

Grade Level Expectations. Grade Level Expectations are specific benchmarks for

each grade level based upon the Sunshine State Standards in each subject area.

13
 Lower Quartile. In descriptive statistics, a quartile is any of the three values

which divide the sorted data set (a cohort) into four equal parts so that each part

represents one fourth of the sampled population. For this research, the lower quartile is

comprised of students with academic performance placing them in the lower 25% of

same grade-level students.

Response to Intervention. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

of 2004 refers to the “use of a process that determines if (a) child responds to scientific,

research-based intervention as part of . . . evaluation procedures” for specific learning

disabilities. This process is described in the professional literature as “Response to

Intervention.” RTI is the practice of providing high quality instruction/intervention

matched to student needs in general education and using learning rate over time and level

of performance to make important educational decisions. Goals of RTI include early

intervention and prevention to enhance outcomes for children by providing access to

increasingly intense supports, eliminating a “wait to fail” system and linking instruction

to progress monitoring.

Safe Harbor. A school that has met the requirements for participation as well as

other indicators (writing, graduation rate, and school grade) but has not met the reading

or mathematics proficiency targets can still make AYP through a provision in No Child

Left Behind called Safe Harbor. Safe Harbor applies only to those subgroups that did not

meet the reading or mathematics targets. In Safe Harbor, the percentage of non-proficient

students must be decreased by at least 10% from the prior year in the subject being

evaluated. In addition, the subgroup must make progress in writing proficiency and

graduation rate.

14
 Stanford 9. Stanford 9 is a research-based, norm-referenced achievement test

developed by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. It provides information on student performance

based on its nationwide standardization program conducted in the spring and fall of 2002.

While maintaining some facets of the original Stanford 9, Florida’s Stanford 9 includes

features designed to measure Florida’s students’ progress in comparison to the progress of

students nationwide (Florida Department of Education, 2005).

Sunshine State Standards. The Florida State Board of Education approved the

Sunshine State Standards in order to provide expectations for student achievement. The

standards, approved in 1996, covered seven subject areas, each divided into four separate

grade clusters (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12). Florida chose this format in order to provide

flexibility to school districts in designing curriculum based on local needs. However, as

Florida moves toward greater accountability for student achievement at each grade level,

the Sunshine State Standards have been further defined. In the subject areas of language

arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, the Sunshine State Standards have been

expanded to include Grade Level Expectations. These Grade Level Expectations will

eventually become the basis for state assessments at each grade 3-10 in language arts and

mathematics and may eventually be used in state assessments in science and social

studies (Florida Department of Education, 2005).

15
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This review of literature addresses a variety of issues germane to low-achieving

students and the paradigm shift that RTI, the focus of this research with its Federal and

State legislation, has engendered. Most relevant to RTI is the heated low-achieving and

SLD debate. This debate includes, from a historical perspective, research on individuals

with brain damage that ultimately led to studies of reading difficulties in children and

researchers’ attempts to establish techniques that could, with validity and reliability,

distinguish SLD from low-achieving students. This review will provide an update on the

current, heated debate at all levels concerning similarities and differences between low-

achieving and SLD students. Finally, this researcher will address the implications of the

RTI initiative and its potential to provide low-achieving students with an intense level of

timely and judicious remediation services that are currently only available to students

qualifying for ESE services. These discussions are important in order to reflect upon the

ongoing debate as to whether or not low-achieving students should qualify for SLD

services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or similar services

(Gresham, Macmillan, & Bocian, 1996; Johnson, Mellard, & Byrd, 2005; Kavale et al.,

2008; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002; Van den Broeck, 2002).

16
 Some researchers feel low-achieving students would benefit from services such as

early intervention, small class size, direct and intense instruction, or even additional

support in the general education classroom (Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006). Unfortunately, the

many shared, and perceived different, characteristics between low-achieving and SLD

students, the expense involved in providing additional support services, and developing

criteria as to who will, or will not, qualify for these services contribute to the discord

(McDermott, Goldberg, Watkins, Stanley, & Glutting, 2006). Nevertheless, the individual

gains of only a few targeted students, especially the low-achieving children, could have

profound and positive effects on their performance on the FCAT, and, ultimately, on a

school’s overall grade (Marshall, 2003; Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Schatscheider, & Sweeney,

2008).

Low Achieving Students and Students with Disabilities

Children who are low-achieving generally tend to drift on the periphery of

eligibility for several major ESE programs (Vanauker-Ergle, 2003). These programs

include the SLD, EMH, and, to a lesser degree, emotionally handicapped (EH) and other

health impaired (OHI) programs (Aaron, 1997; Fuchs, Deshler, & Reschly, 2004; Jones

& Menchetti, 2001; Sabornie, Evans, & Cullinan, 2006; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon,

2000). The SLD and EMH classifications are controversial regarding the appropriateness,

stability, and accuracy of classification guidelines (Bildt, Sytema, Kraijer, & Minderaa,

2005; Forness et al., 1998; Francis et al.; 2005; Jones & Menchetti; Kavale et al., 2008;

Reschly & Hosp, 2004; Williamson, McLeskey, Hoppey, & Rentz, 2006). Because the

guidelines and their inflexibilities vary from state to state, children who are low-

achieving may or may not qualify for specific ESE programs, depending upon where they
17
live (Coutinho & Oswald, 2005; Reschly & Hosp, 2004; Roscigno et al., 2006). In

addition, a child’s gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and minority background impact

the disproportionality of ESE placement (Agnew et al., 2008; Coutinho & Oswald, 2000;

Coutinho, Oswald, & Best, 2002; Farkas, 2003; Hosp & Reschly, 2003, 2004; Maheady,

Towne, Algozzine, Mercer, & Ysseldyke, 1983; O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006; Oswald,

Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999; Reid & Knight, 2006; Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002).

Often, the difference between eligibility and ineligibility may be as subtle as a difference

of only a few points on a psychometric test (Francis et al., 2005; MacMillan & Siperstein,

2002). Accordingly, many researchers have reported that low achieving and ESE children

may have very similar needs, face analogous impediments, and would likely benefit from

similar, already existing school-based services (Fletcher et al., 1994; Ryder, Burton, &

Silberg, 2006). While some research has been conducted on low-achieving children, and

their academic status in relationship to ESE classifications, the conclusions reached in the

available research are variable and sometimes contradictory (Aaron, 1997; Gresham,

VanDerHeyden, & Witt, 2005; Hallahan & Mercer, 2001; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000;

Mather & Kauffman, 2006; Oswald, 2002; Schatschneider et al., 2008). There is a

plethora of information regarding abilities, characteristics, needs, and other statistics on

children who are SLD; however, there is little research about how children who are low

achieving and do not qualify for SLD services perform in the classroom (Baxter,

Woodward, & Olson, 2001). Even less research addresses low-achieving children and the

effect the recent reauthorization of the IDEA 2004 and RTI might have in precluding

their potential academic failure and possibly even negating their need for ESE referral

18
(Fiorello, Hale, & Snyder, 2006; Mather & Kauffman; 2006; Mellard et al., 2004; Ofiesh,

2006; Vaughn et al., 2003).

In the United States, the number of students served by the federally supported

program for students with SLD has steadily increased since 1976 when 796,000 students

or 1.8% of total school enrollment ages 3-21, received services. Based on the U. S.

Department of Education’s 2008 report on the Condition of Education, the percentage of

students served under the SLD program has risen to nearly 6%, or 2.9 million students

ages 3-21. Students identified as SLD comprise the largest proportion of students served

in any single disability category. Prior to IDEA 2004, federal guidelines for SLD

generally stipulated that children could be classified as SLD if they showed achievement

levels below those of their peer groups and had “a severe discrepancy between

achievement and intellectual ability (IQ)” (Steubing et al., 2002; U. S. Office of

Education, 1977, p. G1082). Many researchers criticized the ways in which these

guidelines were interpreted and operationalized by states, districts, and even individual

schools (Aaron, 1997; Fletcher et al., 1994; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lipsey, & Roberts,

2001; Gresham et al., 1996; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Stuebing et al., 2002; Zirkel &

Krohn, 2008). Some even disputed definitions of the term learning disabled (Hallahan &

Mercer, 2001; Kavale & Forness, 2000; Kavale et al., 2008; Lloyd & Hallahan, 2005;

MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002; Mercer, Jordan, Allsopp, & Mercer, 1996; Mercer, King-

Sears, & Mercer, 1990). While these intense debates continued at all levels of the

educational and political hierarchy, calls for assistance from elementary, middle, and

secondary schools continued unabated in an often vain effort to gain funding to assist

low-achieving students who did not qualify for SLD services and continued to struggle or

19
fail (Boon, 2008; Dombrowski et al., 2006). These calls for help and relentless

paradigmatic debates finally gained federal policy-making officials’ attention and,

ultimately, had a dramatic affect on the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 and its potential

impact on the manner in which schools may serve low-achieving students (Boon, 2008;

Kavale, 2005; Mather & Kauffman, 2006; Ofiesh, 2006).

While most states adopted the federal government’s severe discrepancy model,

many still viewed it as insufficient and defined SLD in manners to meet their own

specific needs (MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998; Mercer et al., 1990; Reschly &

Hosp, 2004; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Richey, & Graden, 1982). In 1983, the federal

government attempted to operationalize a more standard definition by convening the

Workgroup on Measurement Issues in the Assessment of SLD (Fuchs et al., 2001). The

Work Group confirmed that (a) states had adopted a variety of measurement formulas for

identifying a severe discrepancy, and (b) while some of the formulas were excessively

complex, others were outright flawed. Recommendations from the Work Group included

a desire to see states and districts regress an aptitude measure to produce a predicted

achievement score. Consequently, discrepancy should then be defined as the difference

between actual and predicted achievement (Fuchs et al.). This proposal was criticized

sharply by psychologists and reported by Wilson’s study (as cited in Fuchs et al.) as an

“atheoretical, psychologically uninformed solution to the problem of SLD classification.”

While these debates over identifying SLD versus low achieving continued through the

1990s, two major events unfolded resulting in even more educators and politicians

questioning the validity of the SLD construct.

20
 The first, eluded to earlier, was the phenomenal increase in the number of

students identified with disabilities. Between 1977 and 1994, the number of students with

disabilities increased from 3.7 million to 5.3 million, despite relatively constant overall

public school enrollment (Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994; U. S. Department

of Education, 2008). These numbers represented an increase from 8.3% to 12.2% of the

general student population and accounted for approximately 20% of the increase in per

student spending during the 1980s. These numbers were cause for trepidation in many

stakeholders in education, including politicians, school boards, and superintendents.

Many began pressing for an immediate downsizing of special education (Fuchs et al.,

2001).

The Regular Education Initiative was the second event. Wang, Reynolds, and

Walberg (1994) were openly critical of special education’s empire building and

extravagant spending. They also took a resolute stance against separating ESE children

into separate classrooms and condemned this practice as racist since “a disproportionate

number of students at the margins are members of racial and ethnic minorities” (p. 12).

Wang et al. pushed to transform the general education classroom into a more

instructionally responsive environment. This new classroom would be capable of

educating large numbers of ESE children alongside their nondisabled peers. Wang et al.

envisioned that money saved in this manner would be more effective if directed towards

meeting the needs of children with more serious disabilities such as mental retardation.

When SLD advocates questioned the willingness and ability of general education

classrooms to meet the unique learning needs of many students with disabilities, an

impassioned debate ensued. While the Regular Education Initiative was never adopted on

21
a wide-scale basis, the debate further contributed to the growing perception that SLD was

an invalid category and indistinguishable from low achieving (Fuchs et al., 2001;

Hallahan et al., 2007; Wang et al., 1994).

During the same time frame, several lines of research addressed the SLD

construct and the considerable variation in SLD definition and operationalization. These

variations occurred not only from state to state, but also between school districts within a

state (MacMillan et al., 1998; Mercer et al., 1990; Reschly & Hosp, 2004). Some of the

significant variations included which IQ test, which achievement test, and which

processing test combination to administer to students. States and districts also disagreed

as to what constituted a significant discrepancy between a child’s IQ, achievement test,

and processing test results. Additionally, many individualized education plan committee

members participating in staffing meetings deliberately disregarded definitional rules and

regulations to ensure low-achieving, urban students qualified for SLD programs

(Ysseldyke et al., 1982). These committee members acknowledged that much of the

failure exhibited by urban children was more likely attributable to low SES rather than to

SLD. However, the decision to place these students in ESE was the only way to provide

remediation services unavailable in underfunded, urban, regular education classrooms

(Fuchs et al., 2001; MacMillan et al.; Mercer et al.; Reschly & Hosp; Ysseldyke et al.).

Finally, earlier research by Gresham et al. (1996) indicated that SLD and low-achieving

students were more alike than they were different and suggested that both groups should

be considered eligible for special education services.

In the 1990s, a group funded by the National Institute of Child Health and

Development (NICHD) became a standout voice expressing dissatisfaction with current

22
SLD definitions and promoting fundamental change in perceptions about SLD. Differing

from the Regular Education Initiative, the NICHD group recognized the legitimacy of the

SLD construct but felt the definitions and operationalizations of the construct were

invalid and needed reconceptualization. The NICHD groups concerns centered on using

an IQ/achievement discrepancy as a definition or operationalization of SLD. However,

the group’s principal interest in the IQ discrepancy was to determine if indeed

quantitative or qualitative differences exist between the two groups of SLD and low-

achieving students. The group sought to ascertain if children whose poor reading is

discrepant from their IQ are different from children whose poor reading is not discrepant

from their IQ (Lyon, 2005; Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003; Stuebing et al., 2002).

Four studies, each building upon the other, produced no evidence that low IQ and high IQ

poor readers responded differently to educational intervention. The NICHD group

contended that for educational purposes, the SLD and low-achieving groups were

virtually indistinguishable (Fuchs et al., 2001; Shaywitz, Fletcher, Holahan, & Shaywitz,

1992; Stanovich, 2005).

A second factor studied by the NICHD group was intended to identify

domain specific factors, such as phonological deficits, as potentially valid SLD markers.

According to the NICHD group, “phonological processing figures prominently among

the information processing operations that are believed to underlie severe problems in

word recognition” (Fuchs et al., 2001, p. 746). The NICHD group estimated that nearly

25% of the student population (correlating to the low-achieving group) exhibit

phonological deficits and argued that all of these children should be treated as though

they have a reading disability. The NICHD group felt that children who meet the criteria

23
for SLD and who receive ESE services and children who read below the 25th percentile

but do not qualify for SLD services should be combined since the data indicate “little

difference between the two groups in the proximal causes of their reading difficulties”

(Fuchs et al., 2001, p. 746; Stanovich, 2005; Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon,

2004). The group contends that the key to more effective instruction is early

identification and intervention with “systematic, explicit, and intensive instruction in

phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension”

(Fuchs et al., p. 747) in the general education classroom. This contention was also the

conclusion of a major study in 1970, namely, The Isle of Wight. The Isle of Wight study

had previously confirmed the lack of differences between SLD and low-achieving

students, but was largely ignored. Lyon (2005) reintroduced this study during his

testimony supporting the NICHD group’s position before the U. S. House Subcommittee

on Education and the Workforce on March 8, 2001 (Fuchs et al.). Lyon’s contributions as

well as the contributions of dozens of other researchers promoting RTI during the

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities summits of 2001 and 2003 were

evident during the last few years leading up to the reauthorization of IDEA 2004. This act

was signed into law on December 3, 2004, by President George W. Bush. Then, in

August 2006, the U. S. Department of Education (2007) released new regulations

indicating generally that the state must follow the following guidelines: not use any

single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child has a

disability, not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and

achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, permit the

use of a process based on a child’s response to scientific research-based intervention, and

24
permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a

child has a learning disability.

Response to Intervention

While RTI may prove effective in any academic subject, including behavioral

intervention (Gresham, 2005), this research focused on implementation issues

surrounding reading instruction and intervention, the core of existing research into RTI

(Berkeley et al., 2009; Burns, Jacob, & Wagner, 2008; Fletcher et al., 2004; Kavale et al.,

2008; Kavale & Spaulding, 2008; National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities,

2005; National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, 2007). Throughout the RTI

process, teachers must identify at-risk students as early as possible and monitor their

academic progress through a data gathering process (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle,

2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Kort, 2008). Prior to gathering data to determine if students

are responsive to intervention, schools must identify a subgroup of at-risk, potential

nonresponders (Foorman & Ciancio, 2005). For the stability cohort, this information may

already be available during preservice from a variety of sources. These sources include

the previous year’s standardized test scores, end-of-year summative reading exams, or an

appropriate norm- or criterion-referenced instrument (Compton, 2006). Ideally, entry

level probes are administered to an entire grade level during the beginning few weeks of

school as part of RTI’s early identification and intervention strategy (Foorman &

Ciancio; Speece, 2005).

Subsequent to the identification process aimed at identifying at-risk students

(lower quartile) for reading failure, student responsiveness to general education reading

instruction is monitored (Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz, 2004). Here, the essence of RTI
25
is invoked, namely, the requirement that effective research-based reading instruction

(Gerber, 2005; Vaughn et al., 2008) is taking place in the classroom and that a lack of

quality instruction is not the cause of any observed reading skills deficit (Klingner &

Edwards, 2006; Reschly, 2005). Identification of inadequate instruction should

immediately supplant the RTI process and redirect educational leaders to address a

potential deficit in the educational setting. However, following confirmation of the

effective delivery of competent and ongoing research-based reading instruction in the

classroom (Gerber), teachers must initiate progress monitoring (Compton, 2006).

Subsequent monitoring should occur at the end of relatively short periods of no more than

6 to 8 weeks (Reschly). However, if serious reading delays are identified sooner,

intervention processes should begin at that time. Those students who do not respond to

classroom instruction will receive additional remediation support at a second tier, or

level, from the homeroom teacher, a reading teacher, or a specifically identified educator

qualified to provide reading instruction. Assessment would continue at a level similar to

that of the first tier (Marston, 2005).

RTI is, in essence, a form of dynamic, formative assessment that, according to

proponents, will assist educators in designing reading interventions early enough

(O’Connor et al., 2005) with the intention to intercede ESE placement in later years.

According to RTI, children responsive to the more intensive and early intervention

instruction at the lower tiers remain in their regular education classrooms where

practitioners continue to monitor their progress (Mellard et al., 2004). Students who are

unresponsive may qualify for special education by virtue of their unresponsiveness or

receive a comprehensive evaluation to determine ESE eligibility (Vaughn et al., 2003).

26
Progress monitoring data should help to identify special needs children at an earlier age

than the historical IQ-discrepancy model and its highly contested wait-to-fail approach

(Francis et al., 2005). Additionally, RTI’s progress monitoring methodology should

generate sufficient diagnostic information to support future programmatic placement

decisions (Mather & Kauffman, 2006; National Research Center on Learning Disabilities,

2007).

Many school districts and educators (Johnson et al., 2005; Putnam, 2008; Zirkel

& Krohn, 2008) look to RTI as a viable strategy to address academic versus social or

behavioral problems (Mellard et al., 2004). Specifically, most RTI research addresses

reading problems in children at the earliest possible age (Gersten & Dimino, 2006;

Kavale et al., 2008; O’Connor et al., 2005; U. S. Department of Education, 2007). RTI

did not achieve its current level of support overnight or accidentally. Many of the RTI

policymakers rallied behind the Reading First initiative, a major component of the No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which required schools to use scientific knowledge to

guide selection of core curricula and to use valid screening measures and progress

monitoring to identify students in need of more intensive instruction (National Joint

Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005).

RTI brings to the educational setting the concept of a multi-tiered approach to

reading intervention and remediation (Marston, 2005; Samuels, 2008). RTI versions

range from two to four instructional intervention tiers. The degree of the reading

intervention increases at each tier (Barnett et al., 2004; National Research Center on

Learning Disabilities, 2007), becoming progressively more intense as the student

advances upward through the tier system (Foorman & Ciancio, 2005). Depending upon

27
the availability of assets, schools provide this increased level in intensity through a

variety of options (Berkeley et al., 2009; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; O’Connor et al., 2005).

These options include more teacher-centered and direct-instructional techniques; more

frequent or lengthier reading instruction; creating smaller, more homogeneous groups; or

reliance upon specialty reading teachers for assistance (Kamps & Greenwood, 2005).

Currently, most schools use the problem-solving approach (National Joint Committee on

Learning Disabilities, 2005; National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, 2007) in

providing RTI intervention, as opposed to a standard treatment protocol.

Consider the following scenario in understanding the problem-solving approach

(Reschly, 2005). In the Heartland (Iowa) Educational Agency, a statewide reform model

resulted in a four-level, problem-solving model focused on providing educational

intervention in a timely manner (Fuchs, Deshler, & Reschly, 2004). At level 1, a teacher

would conference with a parent in an attempt to rectify a child’s reading problem. At

level 2, the teacher would meet with building-level reading specialists in an effort to

monitor and intervene with proven strategies. Failure of level 2 interventions to provide

desired reading success triggers level 3 tier interventions (Reschly). At tier level 3, the

Heartland staff, consisting of doctoral- or master’s-level school psychologists and special

educators, would redesign the intervention and coordinate its implementation. Finally, if

tier level 4 interventions became necessary (Marston, 2005), team members would meet

at a formal due process meeting, and additional psychometric, achievement, and

processing testing would be considered (Berkeley et al., 2009; Hale, Kauffman, Naglieri,

& Kavale, 2006; Kavale, Holdnack, Mostert, 2006; National Research Center on

Learning Disabilities, 2007). Results of this testing may result in qualification for ESE

28
services (Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005; Mather & Kauffman, 2006; National

Research Center on Learning Disabilities; Vaughn et al., 2003).

An alternate RTI approach to the problem-solving methodology is the standard

treatment protocol (STP), a viable and preferred alternative according to Fuchs and Fuchs

(2005). As described, the problem-solving approach results in an individualized strategy

of type and duration for each child (Reschly, 2005). The STP is not as restricted as the

problem-solving approach and involves a trial of fixed duration (e.g., 10-15 weeks)

delivered in small groups or individually (McEneaney, Lose, & Schwartz, 2006).

Students responding to these interventions are generally seen as remediated and disability

free and, with continued monitoring, are able to remain in the general education

classroom (Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006). Students who are unresponsive

to this intervention move to tier 2 and its more intense intervention protocols (McMaster,

Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005). Again, adequate progress will result in their remaining

in the general education classroom for continued monitoring. However, lack of progress

in level 2 will lead educators to suspect the presence of a disability, warranting a further

level of evaluation. Research by Vellutino et al. strongly supports early, intense

intervention at the Kindergarten and first grade levels and that using a STP model

focusing on phonemic awareness, decoding, sight-word practice, comprehension

strategies, and reading connected text can remediate two-thirds of students after just a

single semester of intense support. Vellutino et al. and others (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso,

& Dynda, 2006; Wodrich, Spencer, & Daley, 2006) described the remaining one-third of

the students that were unresponsive to STP as “difficult to remediate” and most likely

candidates for ESE services.

29
 As with assessment, intervention, whether problem solving or standard treatment,

serves RTI’s two fundamental purposes: to provide struggling students with early and

effective instruction and to provide a valid means of assessing learner needs. Although

many RTI proponents are critical of the traditional psychometric approach, RTI

proponents must still prove the validity of their methods (Ofiesh, 2006). Specifically, that

RTI intervention will with reliability and validity substitute for previously accepted

testing protocols (Fiorello et al., 2006). A principle means of demonstrating the validity

of intervention-as-test is by using evidence-based interventions and by ensuring that, in

each instance, all interventions are implemented with fidelity (Willis & Dumont, 2006).

In this regard, the standard treatment protocol may edge out problem solving. In the

standard treatment protocol, educators know what test to implement as there is only one

protocol (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005). STP, in turn, makes training easier and less costly to

accomplish and fidelity of implementation easier to assess and ensure. In addition, the

likelihood of scaling up the process in a school or district is increased. Still, exploring the

comparative fidelity of the two approaches within the same experimental design

represents an important area of research (Fuchs & Fuchs). While this research did not

attempt to compare the two RTI interventions, information gained tended to support the

STP strategy, especially with the recently adopted reading series emphasizing STP as it

was less demanding of teacher time, training, and resources.

Summary

In summary, RTI advocates feel the process can help solve some of the practical

problems associated with the IQ-achievement discrepancy model. First and foremost,

proponents describe RTI as capable of providing intense and focused help more quickly
30
and at an earlier age to a greater number of struggling students. Second, in providing

instruction that is more intensive to these students, RTI distinguishes poorly performing

students with disabilities from those who perform poorly because of low SES concerns or

inadequate instruction. Consequently, proponents argue that a successful separation of

“true positives” (students with SLD) from “false positives” (students who appear disabled

but do not meet criteria for SLD) will ultimately reduce special education enrollments

and costs. RTI should encourage serious and sustained early intervention with at-risk

children with the goal of leading to stronger school performance and to fewer ESE

referrals, all of which should enhance the validity of the disability identification process.

Such changes in service delivery would be of substantial benefit to children, teachers,

parents, and schools. A variety of authors raised important questions concerning RTI and

its implementation (Berkeley et al., 2009; Deshler et al., 2005; Flanagan et al., 2006; Hale

et al., 2006; Kavale et al., 2008; Wodrich et al., 2006). These questions helped serve as a

guide during the data gathering process. Since qualitative methodology guided this

research, additional questions and avenues for inquiry did emerge:

1. Will the district adopt the RTI process in its entirety and reduce current

intense reliance on the IQ-Discrepancy model or maintain emphasis on

IQ-discrepancy?

2. Will teachers implement scientifically validated instruction with fidelity?

3. Will teachers and their support staff correctly identify students who are likely

to be unresponsive to the first tier levels of intervention?

4. Will teachers remain committed to monitoring at-risk students once the tier

process begins?

31
5. Will districts deploy more intensive, costly, and best-evidence second tier

intervention for children unresponsive to the first tier?

6. Will children’s performance in this second tier be sufficient to determine

which children may return to the general education classroom and undergo

continued monitoring?

7. Will RTI be successful in reducing overall numbers of students eligible for

SLD reading?

8. Will IQ determination continue to provide relevant information in the

unexpected underachievement of students?

9. Will IQ determination continue to assist education professionals in

understanding poor performance from a cognitive, linguistic, and perceptual

perspective?

10. Will the aftermath of the IQ-achievement discrepancy debate eliminate the

routine measurement of intelligence as a precursor to eligibility

determinations?

11. Will a low-achievement definition result in the decertification of children

currently receiving services under the SLD label?

12. Will minority overrepresentation in ESE change under RTI?

13. Will the district adopt a problem solving or standard-protocol model?

14. What are the tests teachers will use to determine mobility between tiers?

15. Who will determine which research-based protocol (problem solving or STP)

to apply as the primary intervention?

32
 16. When and how often are parents involved during the intervention phase of

RTI?

17. What curricular materials does the district use for intervention purposes?

18. Who monitors student progress during interventions and how often should

monitoring occur?

19. Who prepares the general education teacher to understand and implement

RTI?

20. What are the precise criteria to determine a child’s movement up or down the

tier system? In other words, what criteria will determine responsiveness or

unresponsiveness to intervention?

21. Is there a nationally defined teacher-to-student ratio that differs from the

Florida’s constitutional requirement?

22. How will the district approach the challenge of identifying SLD from low

achieving students, or will the differentiation process even endure?

23. What are some of the unforeseen issues schools may face during the early

years of RTI implementation?

While serious academic and emotional debates concerning how to remediate low-

achieving students are likely to continue, RTI is a recent reality in this Northwest Florida

school district where low SES students remain the majority of students referred for

academic remediation or ESE services (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006). Therefore, this

researcher feels that it is vital to ascertain what teachers perceive to be impediments in

the implementation of RTI that prevent children who are low achievers from succeeding

academically in the classroom. Teachers are not only directly charged with educating all

33
children, but they are mediators by which legislative mandates and interventional

techniques, such as RTI, will be implemented. Impediments that teachers perceive to be

hindering the academic success of low-achieving children under RTI need to be

investigated in order to develop interventions, to develop programs, and to provide

critical, required support from educational leaders that teachers believe will assist them in

addressing these children’s needs.

34
 CHAPTER III

METHOD

The focus of this research centered on the experiences school-based professionals

had with the newly implemented RTI process. Specifically, this study explored perceived

impediments to the successful implementation of RTI at a Title I elementary school.

Since this Northwest Florida county began phasing in the RTI process at the beginning of

the 2006-2007 academic year, most teachers, with the exception of the 2008-2009 school

year initiates, have used or been exposed to RTI. These experienced teachers were the

mainstay for data collection during 2008.

Qualitative research data from a Title I, PreK-fifth grade public elementary school

from a Northwest Florida county provided the foundation for this research. The school

selected was an information rich source because of the large number of minority (65%)

and low SES students (86%) in attendance. Minority status and low SES are strong

predictors of students with low achievement and documented needs for extensive

remediation (Boon, 2008; Coutinho & Oswald, 2000; Coutinho et al., 2002; Farkas,

2003; Keels, 2008; O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006; Oswald et al., 1999; Reid & Knight,

2006; Roscigno et al., 2006; Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002). This researcher felt that

teachers at this school have most likely had substantial experience teaching a number of

students who belong to one or more of these groups. Consequently, they would have had

35
experience teaching many students with SLD, who were low achieving, and who had an

opportunity to experience first hand the newly implemented RTI process. At any given

time throughout this research, 25 to 30 low-achieving students were in RTI and receiving

intervention through the tier process. Approximately 25% of these students moved on to

tier 4, the final tier where testing and ESE qualification determinations are made. Of note,

the educational leaders and teachers at this school where this researcher is an educational

leader managed to improve student performance on the FCAT from a school grade of a

“D” to a “B” in just a few years but saw the school’s grade slip to a “C” during the 2006-

2008 academic years, the first years of RTI’s implementation.

In Florida’s elementary schools, the school grades are calculated based upon the

following FCAT criteria: the scores on reading and math in grades 3-5, the writing scores

for grade 4, and the science score for grade 5. Also included in the calculations are third-

grade retained students’ learning gains, the 4-5 grade stability cohort learning gains, and

the learning gains of the lower quartile in reading and math. If a school does not make

adequate learning gains for the low-achieving children in FCAT reading and math, the

school’s grade is lowered one letter grade. Finally, a student participation rate of at least

95% in the reading and math portions of the FCAT is required for a school to earn an

“A,” and a participation rate of at least 90% is required to earn any other grade.

This researcher employed multiple methods of qualitative data collection

throughout this research. These methods included two focus groups that targeted different

groups of educational professionals, a document review, and two purposefully-sampled,

criterion-based, follow-up interviews. According to Hodder (2003), Leech and

Onwuegbuzie (2007, 2008), Patton (2002), and Richards (2005), the use of multiple

36
methods (data triangulation) strengthens a qualitative study by reducing the error effects

of any one method used by itself; therefore, document reviews, focus groups, and

information-rich follow-up interviews provided data for analysis. Focus groups and

interview participants checked the accuracy of their sessions’ transcriptions. The member

checking process also provided feedback on initial data analysis in order to reduce

researcher bias and improve validity (Richards).

Richards (2005) and Patton (2002) felt that at the beginning of a qualitative

research project, the researcher’s having access to critical documents relevant to the

research is an ideal situation. These documents provide the researcher with essential

programmatic information that often cannot be observed. Therefore, prior to the focus

groups or follow up interviews, this researcher reviewed the district’s RTI Technical

Assistance Paper (TAP). The TAP review was critical since it provided this researcher

with the district’s approach to implementing RTI. The TAP also described the RTI and its

implementation at the school level, the responsibilities of various specialists, and the

recommended actionable timelines. This TAP review and the document generated by the

first focus group became the core subject matter of the second focus group. Since this

study concentrated on implementation issues of the RTI process from the school’s

perspective, student records were not examined nor were any student interviews

conducted.

Following the TAP document review, this researcher convened two separate focus

groups. According to Krueger and Casey (2000), there are good reasons to conduct focus

groups. Two of these appropriate to this research included “looking for the range of ideas

or feelings people have about something” and “attempting to understand differences in

37
perspectives between groups or categories of people” (p. 24). Krueger and Casey also

recommended that researchers “avoid mixing people who may feel they have different

levels of expertise or power related to the issue. We want to create an environment where

all participants feel comfortable saying what they think or feel” (p. 27). To that end, one

focus group consisted of the prekindergarten through fifth-grade general education and

special education teachers, reading coach, media specialist, and curriculum coordinator.

The second group included administration, guidance, and the school psychologist. While

Krueger and Casey recommend three or four focus groups in order to reach “saturation,”

(p. 26) they do admit that fewer sessions are permissible as researchers balance design

with available resources.

Finally, follow-up interviews using the purposeful sampling strategy (Patton,

2002) completed the data triangulation process. According to Patton,

The logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information-rich

cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can

learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry

(p. 230).

Patton (2002) described 16 purposeful sampling strategies (pp. 230-244). While

Patton’s extreme or deviant case (outlier) sampling strategy would indeed focus on

“outstanding success/notable failures” (p. 243), this researcher employed Patton’s

intensity sampling strategy to identify individuals for-follow up interviews. This

researcher chose Patton’s intensity sampling strategy over his extreme or deviant case

(outlier) sampling strategy for the following reasons:

38
 Extreme or deviant cases may be so unusual as to distort the manifestation of the

phenomenon of interest. Using the logic of intensity sampling, one seeks excellent

or rich examples of the phenomenon of interest, but not highly unusual cases.

(Patton, p. 234)

Patton wrote that individuals selected via the intensity sampling strategy would better

meet the needs of the heuristic researcher. According to Patton, heuristic researchers

draw upon their “intense personal experiences” (p. 234). As this researcher has over 12

years experience in education and education administration, this sampling strategy

provided the best opportunity to utilize “some prior information and considerable

judgment” in the “reflective process of heuristic inquiry” (p. 234). During the heuristic

reflection process, this researcher determined the numbers and grade levels of the follow-

up interviews based upon the wealth of data gained from the focus group sessions.

While employing Patton’s (2002) strategy of intensity sampling, this researcher

asked the school’s curriculum coordinator, guidance counselor, reading teacher, and

writing and science teachers (all experienced teachers by virtue of their having earned

educational leadership positions) to recommend teachers they felt were rich sources of

information on two topics. These two topics were teaching low-achieving children to read

and how the RTI process is helping or hindering the intent to provide timely intervention.

Only prekindergarten (PKG) through fifth-grade master teachers, those teachers on

continuing contract, or teachers fulfilling leadership positions at the school or district

level qualified for follow-up interviews. Alternative strategies to selecting interview

participants include Patton’s opportunistic, or emergent, sampling strategy and the

strategy of convenience sampling. Because of time and financial constraints, this

39
researcher was unable to take advantage of either of these two strategies. All selected

prospective participants were willing to participate in the follow-up interview process.

All interviewees also received an explanation that approximately one-half to 1 hour of

interview time would be involved and that assigned pseudonyms would protect each

participant and mask his or her identity.

Focus group and interview participants reviewed transcriptions and documents for

accuracy and participated in review-of-data analysis drafts. This process is referred to as

member checking and is an effort to reduce researcher bias and increase validity of the

triangulation process (Richards, 2005).

Finally, this researcher was a school-based educational leader at the school where

data was collected. Therefore, certain steps were taken to reduce any bias this authority

role may have had with the individuals involved in the focus groups and follow-up

interviews. These steps included providing a relaxed setting familiar to the participants

and refreshments appropriate to the occasion. Additionally a free-form, relaxed, semi-

structured interaction allowed for the generation of spontaneous ideas with little

hesitation. Finally, the opportunity for participants to anonymously submit ideas to this

researcher via simple notes in a mailbox provided an additional opportunity to provide

comments or ideas. This opportunity addressed research-based concerns (Krueger &

Casey, 2000) that not all ideas would be put forth at focus groups or interviews in the

presence of an authority figure. All comments and ideas, once compiled, were made

available for all participants to review and comment upon using anonymous notes.

40
 Materials

Appendix A includes a copy of the participant consent form. Question guides for

the focus groups are in Appendixes B and C. Follow-up interview questions based upon

the document review and focus group data are in Appendix D. An Olympus DM10 digital

recorder documented the focus groups and follow-up interviews. A white board was used

to record participant responses during the first focus group. Use of this board permitted

participants to better keep track of emerging data categories during the session. It also

permitted participants to return to previous categories and edit or modify them as new

ideas evolved during the discussions. Note pads and pencils were scattered around on the

tables and gave participants the opportunity to jot down spontaneous thoughts for later

discussion. Upon completion of the first focus group, the white-board data became a

document that was reviewed during the data analysis phase of this research. All data was

transcribed into MSWord™ and then imported into the NVivo 7™ software for coding

and content analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007, 2008; Patton, 2002; Richards, 2005;

Ryan & Bernard, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Design and Procedure

This research used a qualitative approach to data analysis (Patton, 2002; Richards,

2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Qualitative research methodologies are recognized in the

field of educational research as being an important tool in understanding the complexities

of human experiences from the perspectives of those who are living them (O’Day &

Killeen, 2002). Because of the lack of information found in current literature on the

general subject of children who are low-achieving and how the RTI process may enhance

efforts to provide them timely, focused, and extensive remediation services that SLD
41
students receive by law, this researcher used a multiple methods, qualitative research

design that brought to light issues that teachers, guidance counselors, administrators, and

district professionals view as pertinent to the successful implementation of RTI.

This researcher established a background of the district’s perspective on RTI by

reviewing the district’s TAP. This background provided insights as to how the district

perceived RTI should be implemented at the school level, the focus of this research.

However, the focus of this research was not and did not compare actual, school-based

implementation procedures against those in the district’s TAP.

Two focus group sessions followed at the school setting. The first focus group

consisted of the PKG through fifth-grade general education and special education

teachers, reading coach, media specialist, and curriculum coordinator. This session lasted

just under 90 minutes and took place in the school’s media center. This researcher chose

this location because it was large enough to accommodate the nearly 40 participants, was

familiar to all, and was a professional, yet comfortable and relaxed atmosphere. Light

snacks, refreshments, and door prizes furthered this researcher’s attempt to provide a

stress free, casual environment conducive to promoting open interactions between

participants and the researcher (Krueger & Casey, 2000). While 40 participants was a

large focus group, groups of this size are acceptable depending upon the circumstances

(Krueger & Casey). Specifically, this researcher had the opportunity to split the

participants into two separate focus groups such as grades PKG-second and third-fifth.

This option was rejected because of the short period of time RTI was implemented in this

district. During the first year of RTI implementation, grades PKG-third had the majority

of experience with RTI. This discrepancy in experience with RTI is understandable

42
considering that fewer academic referrals were made by the upper grades because most of

the students having academic problems were already placed in a special education

program. Combining all grades kindergarten (KG) through fifth permitted all teachers to

participate and benefit from the broad range of experiences brought to the session. The

second session included educational leaders, guidance, counselor, and school

psychologist. This session took place in the guidance counselor’s office, a setting also

comfortable to all participants. The second session lasted about 45 minutes. A wealth of

data emerged from these two sessions.

Follow up, semi-structured interviews took place in a private room off the media

center at a time of the interviewee’s convenience. The interviews lasted approximately 30

minutes. Interviewees were purposefully selected based on Patton’s (2002) strategy of

intensity sampling. This researcher used a range of criteria in selecting prospective

interviewees. These criteria included identifying teachers who have experience with RTI

by having referred at least three children to RTI and who have seen at least one child

through to completion of tier 4. Prior to the interviews, this researcher provided an

explanation of the purpose of the research and the need to obtain additional views and

thoughts on how implementation of the RTI process is proceeding. Data gathered from

the first 2 focus groups served as the basis for developing the interview guide.

Qualitative interviews were a means of accessing the perspectives of those being

interviewed. Those spoken perspectives became the living data that this researcher

analyzed (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The quality of

the data is rooted in the interviewer’s accurate interpretation and understanding of the

interviewee’s words. This researcher occasionally asked for clarification or expansion of

43
the interviewee’s responses in order to gain a more accurate understanding of RTI

implementation issues. These ongoing response inquiries helped reduce the confounding

effects that personal biases and perspectives held by the interviewer could have on data

collection (Fontana & Frey, 2003).

All data gathered during the focus groups and follow-up interviews were

transcribed into MSWord™ documents. These documents were then imported into

NVivo 7™ software for analysis. This researcher then applied a qualitative analysis

procedure known as content analysis. According to Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007,

2008) and Patton (2002), qualitative researchers frequently use content analysis to count

the number of times codes are used in order to determine which concepts are most cited

throughout the data. These codes were deductively produced and helped in the “data

reduction and sense-making effort that takes a volume of data and attempts to identify

core consistencies and meanings” (Patton, p. 453).

The following themes, categories, and relationships that resulted from this

research effort are presented as an emerging model for understanding implementation

issues regarding RTI from educational professionals’ perspectives as they endeavor to

assist low-achieving students to succeed in the classroom.

44
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to explore experiences school-based professionals

have had with the newly implemented RTI process and to examine perceived

impediments to the implementation of RTI as teachers endeavored to apply RTI in an

effort to improve instructional delivery practices to low-achieving students. The

determination of the implementation issues and the explanation of the teachers’

experiences was done through a qualitative analysis approach to the collected data.

Specifically, a content analysis approach (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007, 2008; Patton,

2002; Richards, 2005; Ryan & Bernard, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was used to

determine themes present in each data set and ultimately compared the content among

them.

The research examined the experiences of teachers, administrators, guidance staff,

school psychologist, school staffing specialists, and the reading coach in individual and

group settings. Transcripts of the second focus group and follow-up interviews and a

review of the document produced by the first focus group served as the primary data set

for this content analysis.

Through analysis, this researcher was able to observe themes rooted in each of the

different data sets. Examination of these themes relative to their respective data sets

allowed for the themes of each to be compared and contrasted. This researcher employed

45
NVivo 7™ qualitative analysis software to analyze the data. The results of this study

should be used to further determine the effectiveness of the implementation of RTI.

Analytic Method

The analytic method used for this study was the content analysis method (Leech

& Onwuegbuzie, 2007, 2008; Patton, 2002; Richards, 2005; Ryan & Bernard, 2003;

Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This method is a qualitative analysis method used to determine

commonalities or themes among texts. In this case, the texts were the focus groups’

transcriptions, document review, and interview transcripts. Thematic analysis was used to

determine themes existing in each of the data sets. Thus, themes were determined based

on the focus groups, and separate themes were determined based on the interviews. The

differences and similarities among the themes of the data sets are stated.

Findings

Relevant Themes

The NVivo 7™ Data Table presented in Appendix E lists all themes (Free Nodes)

deducted from the various data sets. Upon reviewing the 12 themes, this researcher

reduced the number to eight themes by combining teacher’s experience and knowledge

with training on RTI, combining RTI timeline with time, combining psychologist with

assistance, and combining budget with resources. Listed under the three sources columns

are the number of times each data set referenced the eight individual themes based on

content analysis. The total number of times each theme was referenced by all data sets is

tallied in the final references column. Numbers in the references column represent the

46
relative overall weight this researcher assigned each theme while discussing the results

and conclusions.

Relevant Themes in the Focus Groups

The focus group atmosphere provided an environment allowing free-flowing

discussion among the members of the group. These groups were able to identify several

impediments to the Instructional Support Team (IST). The IST is the name of the RTI

model studied in this Northwest Florida-based research. Specific impediments were

identified in six categories: training, parental involvement, materials, strategies to

implement, additional assistance, and sufficient time in classroom.

Theme 1: A lack of trained parents and teachers impedes the IST. The focus

group comprised of teachers claimed the majority of parents were not adequately trained

about the IST and, therefore, did not fully understand the process. Teachers contested that

a workshop should be held to further advance the knowledge of IST among the parents.

The focus group comprised of an administrator, school psychologist, and

guidance counselor agreed and also determined that teachers would benefit from a better

understanding of the IST process. This group mentioned that although two workshops

were held for teachers at the beginning of the year, a refresher was needed in order to run

a successful program. This group wished that more of the teachers would feel

comfortable referring children to the IST process and noted that only a core group of

teachers was instrumental in the process.

Other impediments discussed under the training category, but not as stressed as

the necessity for teacher and parent understanding, were the understaffing of school

47
psychologists and the excessive amount of time required to complete the process. The

groups felt that a greater number of psychologists would increase IST success. They also

felt that the time periods of the tiers of the process required too much time.

With regard to teacher training, the guidance counselor said two workshops were

offered. The counselor stated, “Well, I gave two workshops at the first of the year.” The

counselor added, however, “But I think that, think that maybe [the teachers need a little

refresher] . . . and I think some of them were overwhelmed.”

The counselor stated, “I wish that more teachers would refer. There are some

teachers that never [refer].” The counselor added, “I probably should make more clear

next year that when, if a child is even going to be considered for retention, they should

have an IST packet.” Lastly the counselor said, “. . . and I wish that more teachers would

feel comfortable with referring.”

Theme 2: A lack of parental involvement is a significant impediment to the IST.

Sub-par parental involvement was stressed as an impediment to the process and was a

recurring theme throughout the data analysis process. Teachers and other staff regularly

agreed that parents did not do enough on their part to assist the IST. Parents did not show

up for meetings, rarely answered the phone, and often delayed or even sometimes refused

to sign the required paperwork. Further, parents did not provide their needy children with

glasses necessary to read and pass eye examinations. Some parents refused to consider

medical intervention in the form of medication. Often, parents were unable to transport

their children to appointments and declined offers for assisted transportation. It was also

noted that parents did not seem to wish to spend quality time with their children for

48
homework or other free time activities. All of these issues incorporated with parental

involvement were perceived as impediments to the IST process.

The guidance counselor said, “One thing that really slows this process is when the

parent doesn’t come in. I mean, we can go on with it, but then you work yourself crazy

trying to track ‘em down and get signatures . . .”

The psychologist adds, “. . . they still require those screenings and she can’t do

that without a parent’s signature.”

Of the parents, the psychologist put it simply. He stated, “It’s a problem.” He

continued to describe how parental behavior affected the child. The psychologist stated

the following:

But if a you have a parent that won’t get their [sic] child glasses, you certainly

have a parent that very likely doesn’t get, get how values for education work and

that child at home . . . If children don’t see that, especially elementary age

children, if they don’t see that their parents are interested in this, they’re not

interested in it. It’s as simple as that. And you know, even with the best teacher

and while they might improve their motivation, but it’s not gonna be what it

would be if that parent had bought into it.

The guidance counselor expressed a desire to not have to work with the parents as

much, even though it seems impossible. The counselor stated, “I wish that the process

with some of the parents that we have, I wish we didn’t have to bring them in so much

because it takes so long . . .” The counselor continued later, “But a lot of parents, they

don’t really act until, you know, they procrastinate, and then they act.” The counselor

49
suggested harsher penalties for parents who do not show. The counselor said, “I’d like to

have it mandatory parents have to attend. I want to, you know, put some teeth into it.”

Theme 3: A lack of resources is an impediment to the IST process. The groups

cited a necessity for lots of resources, especially human and technological resources.

Technological resources such as leap pads for younger children and functional computers

for all grade levels including copiers and printers were discussed as helpful tools that

were lacking. Human resources including additional classroom support staff and more

psychologists were mentioned.

Other resources described as impedimentary when not available were

observational tools such as cameras and two-way mirrors, books, and a full listing of the

best practices, especially for the youngest PKG students.

The psychologist spoke of resources:

We need resources we don’t have. You know, it is like all of this stuff, the plan is

real good, but a lot of the time we don’t have the resources to do it . . . We need a

time out room in all the elementary schools of the type that work because . . . the

word gets around in kids that if they call you all the way to the end of the line,

you don’t have any cards. You know whereas a good time out room that was safe,

that was padded, and the child could do no damage to himself or anybody else,

that time out room is one of the most effective ways of dealing with behaviors.

The psychologist shared a desire to do his psychological analysis of students early

on in the process, but resources only allow for the students who make it so far in the

program (RTI) to be evaluated. He said, “I’d rather do my work up front, but it would

probably . . . they don’t have enough people [psychologists] to do it.” He claimed this
50
early intervention step was not necessary, but it would make the entire process easier.

The psychologist said, “Now I’m not saying you can’t intervene without knowing the

child’s ability, level but it would sure be easier.”

Theme 4: A lack of the implementation of various strategies can be

impedimentary to the IST. The focus groups discussed several strategies that if

implemented could result in an increase in the success of the program. These strategies

were currently either not implemented or not implemented to a satisfactory level at the

time of the research. The need for a time out room was discussed as something to help

hold the children accountable for their actions. Mentors, Partners in Academic Learning

(PALS), and parent volunteers were discussed as being beneficiary to the process when

they are well trained and reliable. Reading buddies and peer tutors were also valuable. If

an increase in working, Internet capable computers were to be made, more web-based

programs could help with remediation and enrichment. Large groups were mentioned as

an impediment, and an effort should be made to reduce the numbers of children per

teacher. The school psychologist mentioned that positive reinforcement was the best

choice of punishment and has a better response rate than other forms of punishment. On

positive reinforcement, the psychologist said, “You have to use punishment in any good

program, but positive reinforcement gets your best rate of response.”

While a lack of these interventions was discussed during the focus groups and

interviews, this researcher felt it is important to note that these teachers are trained in the

use of a variety of other research-based reading interventions and are currently applying

these in their classrooms school wide.

51
 Theme 5: Insufficient time impedes the IST. The groups felt that the steps of the

process required too much time to complete. They acknowledged that a certain amount of

time was necessary, but they were frustrated with the total beginning to end times. The

teachers felt that some teachers spent too much time documenting above and beyond

what was necessary. Teachers and staff usually could not find enough time to provide

extra teaching and remediation during the school day. Lastly, the timing of district

observations impeded the process. If the district observed on a day when a child was not

exhibiting target behaviors, the district might consider removing that child from further

consideration for a program that the child may desperately need. The need to reschedule a

similar observation will only delay the improvement of the child and set the timeline back

even further for service delivery. Lastly, the time it took for parents to come in for

meetings and sign required paperwork impeded the process because it delayed the

implementation of IST on the student.

The guidance counselor followed up saying, “Yeah, and that, that upsets me when

somebody from the outside that has had no contact with the child is determining where

and what that child, should, where it should be placed.”

The guidance counselor mentioned a desire to have screenings done early on in

the IST process rather than at the third or fourth step, believing it would save time in the

long run. The counselor said, “I wish the screenings were done at the first, I just wish we

could cut to the chase and have more data.”

The school psychologist mentioned that standards set require teachers to record

more data and file more paperwork before anything can be done with a student, requiring

more time and effort. The psychologist offered this scenario:

52
 Six to 12 [weeks] . . . And the teachers also . . . this is something that we were

weak in when we first started but those teachers have to collect data. They can’t

come into a meeting anymore and just say “Well, he hasn’t done as well as I want

him to.” We have to have some way to measure like we have a behavioral child

who was off task 60% of the time when we would write a goal for their being

off task no more than 20% of the time and, they would have to have

documentation.

He continued to say how this data collection is problematic. The psychologist said, “I

think people have a different understanding of what’s required as far as data that needs to

be submitted.”

Theme 6: A lack of additional assistance impedes the IST. The teachers and staff

agreed that additional assistance was required to successfully implement the IST model

as a remedy. They felt that the social worker needs to be used more frequently and

showed a desire to acquire more teaching assistants. The teachers expressed an interest in

the creation of community service social programs to help the children and their families.

The groups mentioned that summer break impedes the educational process and that some

sort of summer program implementation could be beneficial. The responses of the two

focus groups varied (Table 1).

53
Table 1

Summary of Focus Group Themes

Subject Teachers Focus Group Counselor, Psychologist, and
Administrator Focus Group
Training -Parents need training -Teachers need refresher

-Teachers may be
overwhelmed
Parental Involvement -Not enough follow through -Don’t come in

-Don’t show up -Don’t sign paperwork

-Don’t answer phone -Don’t understand education

at home values
-Refuse to sign paperwork

-Don’t provide glasses

-Refuse medical intervention

-Don’t spend quality time

-Unable to transport children

Materials -Need monitoring device -Need more psychologists

-Glasses for children -Need “Resources”

-Working computers

-Leap pads

-More support staff

-Copiers and printers

-Classroom Library

-Listing of best practices

(Table 1 continues)

(Table 1 continued)
Subject Teachers Focus Group Counselor, Psychologist, and
Administrator Focus Group

Strategies to -Time out room -Positive reinforcement

Implement
-SRA materials -Time out room

-Small groups -Wish more teachers would

refer
-PALs
-Retention = IST packet
-FCRR binders
-Make parental involvement
-Mentors and parents necessary

-Web based programs

-Tutors and reading buddies

-SES tutors

-Better test taking strategies

Insufficient Time in -Too much documenting -Parents procrastinating
Classroom
-Teaching and remediation -Teachers procrastinating
impossible in school day

-No time for district

observations

-Process takes too long

Additional Assistance -Utilize social worker more -Need more psychologists

-More TAs -Need more staff in general

-Community service social

programs

-Summer interrupts education

process
Relevant Themes in the Interviews

The follow-up interviews were conducted between the researcher and the

guidance counselor and an ESE teacher. A few themes were determined from the

transcripts of the interviews.

Theme 1: The lack of parental involvement presents the largest impediment to the

IST. The counselor and the ESE teacher believed that the lack of parental involvement

was the number 1 impediment to the IST. They felt the IST would go much more

smoothly if parents were active participants. They expressed that parents rarely showed

up for meetings or answered the phone. They also mentioned that the parents seem to

have no real desire to be a part of the process.

When asked which is the greatest inhibitor of IST, the school guidance counselor

responded as follows:

For me, it’s parent involvement. It’s number 1. It would go so much more

smoothly if parents became active participants. Now, some parents do, but that

would be for me, um, just not showing up for meetings, answering the phone . . .

[and conferences].

The guidance counselor continued, “. . . for the tier meetings. And things, well, the

glasses have . . . I think it’s mainly just showing up, being involved, being an active part

of our IST.”

The ESE teacher agreed, stating, “I agree.”

Theme 2: The requirement of documentation impedes the IST. The interview

participants felt that the requirement of documentation impedes the IST. The interview

57
participants felt that the filing of documentation takes too long and is too cumbersome

and, in turn, did not allow the emphasis to be on the actual instruction of the students.

The teacher mentioned being frustrated by all the requirements of proof of a problem

before referring a student to the IST. The participants felt that they possessed adequate

strategies but that required documentation slowed the implementation of these strategies

and impeded a successful process.

The guidance counselor noted this annoying requirement as the second largest

impediment to the IST. The counselor offered the following explanation:

For me, the second one that I find most frustrating is that we have lots of

strategies; but it’s now the documentation that they’ve thrown at us. And I don’t

think that the district has an abundance of tests . . . I think documentation

[impedes].

The principal added, “It’s the documentation that’s taking all the time . . .You

don’t have the documentation, or it takes too long to do the documentation.”

The ESE teacher responded, “Do you think that they need to let us know exactly

what they need?”

The guidance counselor answered, “They’re not, they’re not gonna tell us . . . We

pretty much determine that, but the problem this year is midyear they started telling us we

needed all this documentation.”

The ESE teacher agreed, following with, “Oh I know! I know!”

Theme 3: Some characteristics of the system impede the IST. The interview

participants mentioned certain characteristics that impeded the IST. They said the system

is not very flexible to meet the needs of individual students and that sometimes what is
58
best for the student cannot be done because of the rules of the system. They also claimed

that they do not receive the additional behavior technicians and additional support staff

necessary to try to help students before they are placed in the program.

The counselor stated, “There should be a way you could shorten . . . I don’t think

the system is particularly flexible to meet the needs of . . . [individual students].” The

ESE teacher added, “Right. Like you know if you ask yourself that question of ‘What’s

best for the student?’ Sometimes it’s not best to be in that classroom for another 9 weeks

(required amount of time).”

They continued to discuss behavior technicians and additional staffing. The

counselor offered the following stand on the issue:

Now the push is let’s do everything we possibly can to keep them (students) out

of special education. And I understand that, but they don’t give us the additional

[word missing], like they don’t provide the behavioral techs; they don’t provide

the additional support to work them to try to iron things out before a child is

placed.

With regard to the rules and required time between tier levels, the ESE teacher

mentioned the following:

It’s frustrating with some cases, especially with behavioral cases; it’s too long a

period of time. It’s like . . . if a child is acting out in an aggressive manner or

whatever else . . . you’ve done as many interventions as you can, and you’ve

implemented lots of strategies. And it’s time to do something, but you still have to

show that period of time. That’s a frustration.

59
 In response to the documentation process the ESE teacher also offered the

following:

One statement I would like to make is these are things that teachers have been

doing forever, as long as I’ve been in teaching. It’s like a teacher doesn’t refer a

person for a program until usually they’ve already used and implemented all sorts

of strategies, and these strategies have worked with other kids, but they’re still not

working with this 1 child. I’ve tried everything and I don’t know what to do. So,

by that time, I think the teacher’s report needs to be taken more seriously. It’s

kind of like, it doesn’t seem like the teacher’s word is taken as seriously as it

should be when we’re referring kids.

Other Impediments Mentioned

The interview participants mentioned other impediments in less detail, but these

impediments are important, nonetheless. The counselor and teacher cited a lack of time

during the school day for the IST as an impediment, but they were dumbfounded with

how to solve it. They felt that they had neither the money nor human resources to fix the

problem. The counselor mentioned that she felt uncomfortable asking teachers to stay

after school to participate in the IST, especially with the new time schedule that ends the

school day for children at 2:00 p.m. and teachers at 2:30 p.m. (last year the children were

still dismissed at 2:00 p.m., but the teacher day ended at 3:00 p.m.). The two participants

also expressed a concern about the lack of credibility that is awarded to the teacher’s

word with regard to referring students to the IST. They said that too often teachers’

recommendations are undervalued.

60
 The counselor said, “And it would be really nice to have IST on school time, but

that’s impossible.” The school will be undergoing time changes next year, and the

guidance counselor expressed concerns. The counselor stated, “See, I don’t know what’s

going to happen with our time changes . . . what’s going to happen to that 2:15 to

3:00 [block of time]?”

The principal responded, “Block of time that we have now to do things with the

parents? That could disappear, you’re right.”

Then the counselor mentioned that the alternative was impossible because of staff

depletions. The counselor said, “If you have it [a parent/teacher conference] at 11:00

everyday, you’d have to have the people to cover the classroom teachers, and we just

don’t have the teachers.”

The principal added, “Yeah, and we’re going to have even fewer next year. And

they just cut our budget . . . again.”

The counselor mentioned, “I really feel uncomfortable asking teachers to stay

(after school).”

The ESE teacher responded, “Uh-huh. And you are put in that position too

because we need the parent to be there, parent can’t come, parent says I can’t come until

this time . . . It’s real tough.”

Similarities and Differences Between the Themes

The most obvious and resounding similarity between the two data sets is the

determination of an experienced lack of parental involvement as an impediment to the

IST. Both the focus group data and the interview data were clear about the lack of

parental involvement having a significant negative impact on the progress of the IST.
61
Parents were nonexistent in meetings, refused to answer the phone, took lengthy amounts

of time to sign required paperwork, did not provide their children with proper medical

care including refusing to provide glasses and medications, and did not wish to spend

quality time with their children. This impediment was expressed strongly in the focus

groups and reiterated and even determined as the number 1 impediment to the IST in the

interviews.

Both data sets suggested that a lack of time was a problem. Time for extra

learning and enrichment was scarce and hard to fit in during normal school hours. In the

interviews, the participants expressed concern that in the future the IST may need to be

held after regular school hours. This suggestion was unsettling, however. The participants

felt that the school had neither the money nor the human resources to conduct an after

school program. Furthermore, they wondered if student attendance would be robust in an

after school setting. A participant even mentioned feeling guilty asking teachers to stay

after to participate in the IST. Both data sets agreed that certain aspects of the process

take too long.

Both of the data sets expressed a need for more resources in the classroom.

Necessary resources described were books, aides, mentors, tutors, computers, computer

accessories, and better written tests.

Both the focus groups and the interviews suggested that a non-implementation of

new strategies impeded the IST. The focus group was able to suggest several

implementations of strategy that it felt would improve the IST. The interview participants

did not suggest many new implementations of strategy, but acknowledged that they exist.

62
Instead, the interview participants blamed the lack of implementation of strategy on

excessive documentation.

The interview participants made mention of excessive documentation and

regulations as an impediment to the IST. The focus groups made no such suggestion,

other than mentioning these activities as time bearing. The focus groups did mention that

some teachers spent too much time documenting above and beyond, and this practice

suggests unnecessary documentation, while the interview participants were referring to

required documentation causing time constraints.

The interview participants mentioned that the teachers’ opinions and

recommendations did not receive as much credibility as they deserved. Interestingly, the

teachers made no mention of this fact in their focus group. The reason could be that they

are unaware of some sort of behind-the-scenes decision making in which their opinions

were discarded or because they did not feel responsible responding about this topic. The

interview participants contested that teachers who encounter the kids on a daily basis

should have more credit given to their comments and recommendations. The interview

participants thought too much emphasis was put on staff whose interaction with the

students was limited. Both data sets did suggest an understaffed team.

Summary

The purpose of this research study was to determine, through the experiences of

teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists, and administration, factors that

impede the IST. Two data sets were formed from two separate data collection procedures:

focus groups and interviews. From the focus group data set, six themes were formed: a

lack of trained parents and teachers is an impediment to the IST, a lack of parental
63
involvement is a significant impediment to the IST, a lack of resources is an impediment

to the IST, a lack of implementation of various strategies is an impediment to the IST, a

lack of sufficient time is an impediment to the IST, and a lack of additional assistance is

an impediment to the IST. From the interviews, three themes were formed: the lack of

parental involvement presents the largest impediment to the IST, the requirement of

documentation impedes the IST, and some characteristics of the system impede the IST.

The two data sets provided approximately the same impediments with a few small

differences. Both data sets overwhelmingly emphasized the lack of parental involvement

as the most impeding factor experienced.

All of the themes will be covered in detail in chapter 5; however, the

overwhelmingly predominant theme concerning parental involvement is worthy of a brief

note. According to both groups, their perceptions were that parents regularly did not

show up for meetings, hardly answered the phone (provided a working phone number

was even available), and delayed or even sometimes refused to sign required paperwork.

Another major stumbling block was children who needed glasses in order to read and

pass required eye examinations in order for RTI to proceed. Parents either refused or

could not afford to purchase glasses for their children. Some parents refused to consider

medical intervention in the form of medication. A lack of reliable transportation was

often an issue preventing parents from participating in IST. Finally, both groups noted

that parents did not seem to wish to spend quality time with their children for homework

or other free time activities. In their research into parental involvement Wu and Qi (2006)

concluded the following:

64
It is beneficial to be involved in children’s lives with a clear focus on activities

that have more educational relevance. With high hopes, positive beliefs, and

constructive discipline, parents will be able to transcend the shadow that a low

SES might cast over their families and to raise their children with a level of

success. (p. 427)

65
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

Research has established a direct connection between low-achieving students and

incidents of school failures and dropouts, poor performance on standardized tests, violent

offenders (Agnew et al., 2008; Beyers et al., 2001; Milne & Plourde, 2006), gang and

hate group members, substance abuse, incarceration, unemployment or

underemployment, unwed teen mothers, and other systemic societal ills (Hill et al., 1999;

Keels, 2008; Molina & Pelham, 2001; Robinson et al., 1998). It is possible that

successful implementation of RTI could assist in the decrease of these behaviors of low-

achieving students and improve their performance in the classroom.

The purpose of this study was to answer the following question: What experiences

do school-based professionals have with the newly implemented RTI process? The study

further focused on the exploration of RTI implementation issues as teachers endeavored

to apply RTI in an effort to improve the instructional delivery practices to low-achieving

students.

This research examined the experiences of educational leaders, teachers,

guidance, and a school psychologist. These experiences were retold in focus groups and

in individual interviews. These experiences were collected and served as the main source

of data for this study.

66
 Through content analysis, this researcher was able to observe themes rooted in

each of the different data sets. Examinations of these themes relative to their respective

data sets allowed for the themes of each to be compared and contrasted. The results of

this analysis should be used to further determine the effectiveness of the implementation

of RTI.

The specific method of analysis for this study was the content analysis method.

This method is a qualitative analysis tool used to determine commonalities or themes

among texts. Thematic analysis was used to determine the themes existing in each of the

data. Themes among the focus groups and individual interview data were determined and

then compared.

Findings

The content analysis was able to determine emergent themes for both the focus

groups and the individual interviews. Six themes were found for the focus groups, and

three themes were found in the interviews. The themes of each were then compared and

contrasted to determine the overall themes of the study.

Relevant Themes in the Focus Groups

The focus group atmosphere provided an environment allowing free-flowing

discussion among the members of the group. These groups were able to identify several

impediments to the IST. The IST is the name of the RTI model studied in this research.

Specific impediments were identified in six categories: training, parental involvement,

materials, strategies to implement, additional assistance, and sufficient time in classroom.

67
Impediments with Regard to Training

The focus groups determined that parents were not familiar enough with the IST

and did not fully understand it, impeding the process. The groups also determined that

teachers were not trained as much as they should be in order to facilitate the ideal

operation of the IST.

Throughout the RTI process, teachers must, as early as possible, identify at-risk

students and monitor their academic progression through a data gathering process

(Bradley et al., 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Kort, 2008). Inexperienced teachers or

teachers who simply do not know the particulars of RTI implementation might fail in

completing their share of the process from the onset if they are unfamiliar with this

necessary step. Furthermore, even teachers aware of this initial part of the process might

not satisfactorily complete it. Adequate teacher training is necessary to ensure the

essential individual processes that make up RTI are not only fully known but also are

fully understood.

Teachers are instrumental to the RTI process. Not only do they need to identify

at-risk students and monitor them, but also they must adjust their teaching styles to cater

to at-risk or low-achieving students. Kamps and Greenwood (2005) wrote that

intervention can be accomplished through teacher-centered and direct-instructional

techniques; more frequent or lengthier reading instruction; creating smaller, more

homogeneous groups; or relying upon specialty reading teachers or coaches for

assistance. Teachers are also very important to the system as they are the administrators

of tier 1 intervention. At tier 1, a teacher would conference with a parent in an attempt to

rectify a reading problem. Conferencing is a skill set that teachers need to master, and

68
administrators should consider providing teachers with specialized, professional

development in conferencing.

Impediments with Regard to Parental Involvement

Sub-par parental involvement was stressed as an impediment to the process. The

parents did not show up for meetings enough, hardly answered the phone, and delayed or

even sometimes refused the signing of the required paperwork. Further, parents did not

provide their needy children with glasses necessary to read and pass eye examinations.

Some parents refused to consider medical intervention in the form of medication. Often,

parents were unable to transport their children to appointments and declined the offer for

assisted transportation. It was also noted that parents did not seem to wish to spend

quality time with their children for homework or other free time activities.

Members of both focus groups admitted that greater parental involvement would

increase the positive effects of the RTI process, but the current requirement to work with

parents was a hindrance because some parents did not put forth much effort. As

mentioned, parental participation is critical from tier 1 forward, and teacher-parent

conferences are the first step. Parents who delay these conferences by failing to meet with

the teacher delay the implementation of the RTI process and thus affect their child’s

opportunity to learn. Questions regarding RTI and its implementation were offered by

Deshler et al. (2005), Flanagan et al. (2006), Hale et al. (2006), and Wodrich et al.

(2006). One question was simply, “When and how often are parents involved?”

Regardless of whether data would support an actual lack of parental involvement

in RTI at this school (not a purpose of this research), a strong perception regarding a lack

of parental involvement was a constant theme throughout the data analysis. This
69
perception, nevertheless, is a concern for educational leaders that this researcher will

discuss later in the paper.

Impediments with Regard to Materials

The groups cited a necessity for numerous resources, especially human and

technological. Technological resources such as leap pads for younger children and

functional computers (including copiers and printers) for all grade levels were discussed

as helpful tools that are currently lacking. Human resources including additional

classroom support staff and more psychologists were mentioned.

Impediments with Regard to Strategies to Implement

The focus groups discussed several strategies, which if implemented could result

in an increase in the success of the program. These strategies were currently either not

implemented or not implemented to a satisfactory level at the time of this research. The

need for a time out room was discussed as something to help hold the children

accountable for their actions. Mentors, PALS, and parent volunteers were discussed as

being beneficiary to the process when they are well trained and reliable. Reading buddies

and peer tutors are also valuable tools. If an increase in working, Internet-capable

computers is made, more web-based programs could help with remediation and

enrichment. Large groups were mentioned as an impediment and an effort should be

made to reduce the numbers of children per teacher. This effort is consistent with Kamps

and Greenwood (2005) who determined that smaller, more homogeneous groups were

beneficial. Most school districts and educators (Johnson et al., 2005; Putnam, 2008;

70
Zirkel & Krohn, 2008) look to RTI itself as a viable strategy to address academic versus

social or behavioral problems (Mellard et al., 2004).

Impediments with Regard to Additional Assistance

The focus groups agreed that additional assistance was required to successfully

implement the IST as a remedy. They felt that the social worker needed to be used more

frequently and showed a desire to acquire more teaching assistants. The teachers

expressed an interest in the creation of community-service social programs to help the

children and their families. The groups mentioned that summer break impedes the

educational process and that some sort of summer program implementation could be

beneficial.

Impediments with Regard to Insufficient Time in the Classroom

The focus groups felt that the steps of the process required too much time to

complete. They acknowledged that a certain amount of time was necessary, but they were

frustrated with the total beginning to end times. Teachers and staff usually cannot find

enough time to provide extra teaching and remediation during the school day. The timing

of district observations impeded the process. If the district observed on a day when the

children were fine, the district may remove children from the program who should

otherwise be in it. This process only delayed in the improvement of the child and set the

timeline back further.

Relevant Themes in the Interviews

The follow up interviews were conducted between the researcher, the guidance

counselor, and an ESE teacher. The counselor and teacher identified several main
71
impediments to the process. A few themes were determined from the transcripts of the

interviews. These themes revolved around the concepts of parental involvement,

documentation, and other characteristics that impede the process. Presented here are the

main impediments mentioned by the interview participants.

Similar to the results from the focus groups, parental involvement was stressed as

a larger contributor to the impediment of the implementation of IST. Data were the

experiences of the interviewees that parents rarely showed up for meetings or answered

their phones. Furthermore, the participants of the interviews noted that parents generally

seemed to have no real desire to be a part of the IST process. Interviewees felt that the

process would go much more smoothly with the aid of parental cooperation, especially if

parents were proactive about their role.

The interview participants felt that the requirement of documentation impeded the

IST. They felt that the filing of documentation took too long, was too cumbersome, and

did not allow the emphasis to be on the actual instruction of the students. The teacher

mentioned being frustrated by all the requirements of proof of a problem before referring

a student to the IST. The participants felt that they possessed adequate strategies, but the

required documentation slowed the implementation of these strategies. Thus, the

participants felt this impeded a successful process. Essentially, the interviewees

expressed a dislike for some of the regulatory practices required prior to referring a

student to the IST.

The interview participants mentioned certain characteristics that impede the IST.

They said the system is not flexible enough to meet the needs of individual students.

Therefore, that lack of flexibility inhibits a teacher from providing what is best for the

72
student. They also claimed that they did not receive the additional behavior technicians

and additional support staff necessary to try to help students before they were placed in

the program.

Potential Significance of the Study

The results of this study could help school administrators more effectively use

RTI strategies and the IST. The study’s results also provide an understanding of the

impediments to the processes, which could result in the restructuring of the

implementations and thus conclude with more effective use of the strategies. The results

of the study could help school districts determine in what areas to increase and decrease

expenditures with regard to the IST. The results could assist in the training of teachers

and parents so that the process is carried out more effectively and impediments are

reduced. The RTI initiative may provide low-achieving students with an intense level of

timely and judicious remediation services that are currently only available to students

qualifying for ESE services.

Limitations and Delimitations

This study was limited to the exploration of the experiences school-based

professionals have had with the newly implemented RTI process at a Title I public

elementary school from a Northwest Florida county. The elementary school studied was

made up of 65% minority and 86% low SES students. The results of the study should not

be generalized to populations other than ones similar in size and makeup to the sample

population. As mentioned, efforts were made to reduce researcher bias; however, since

73
the researcher was also an educational leader at the school for the study, some researcher

bias may remain.

Conclusions

The thoughts of teachers, administrators, the counselor, and the school

psychologist regarding impediments to the IST have been presented in this chapter. These

impediments were discussed in two different settings, and the similarities and differences

between the outcomes of each are discussed here.

The most prevalent impediment to the IST was a lack of parental involvement.

Both focus groups and participants in the interviews perceived that a lack of parental

involvement seriously impeded the process. The reasons for this impediment are two

fold. First, parents who drag their feet or otherwise decide not to meet with school

officials early on significantly delay the process and deny their children the equal

opportunity to grow academically with their peers that they deserve. Second, parents who

do not actively participate in the process are not adequately assisting their children’s

education. Research shows that parents who are proactive with regard to their child’s

participation in the program positively impact the process (Clements, Reynolds, &

Hickey, 2004). Still, it is important to note that despite the seeming insurmountable

environmental challenges facing low-achieving students, teachers remain their best hope.

Regardless of the environment these low-achieving students come from, teachers can

make a significant, positive difference in their low-achieving students’ lives. Teachers

can greatly improve all their students’ chances for a productive life by giving them the

academic skills they so desperately need, even without parental support (Connor,

Morrison, & Underwood, 2007; Ehri et al., 2001).

74
 The second most frequently mentioned impediment to the IST was that of time

constraints. Participants experienced that time for extra learning and enrichment was

scarce and hard to fit in during normal school hours. However, the participants also felt

that the school had neither the money nor the human resources to conduct an after school

program. Participants also felt that particular steps of the process took too long and

impeded the progress and implementation of more essential steps.

Other impediments mentioned most often included the lack of resources and the

lack of implementation of new strategies. Everyone agreed that books such as classroom

library sets, aides, mentors, tutors, computers, computer accessories, and better means of

evaluation were necessary in the classroom. Participants felt that several new strategies

could be implemented to improve the process, but regulations and required

documentation stymied the efforts to implement these strategies.

Responding to perceived impediments such as a lack of resources, lack of parental

involvement, lack of effective strategies, and lack of adequate resources such as those

mentioned in this study must be the responsibility of educational leaders. Educational

leaders at the school and district levels must know when, how, and why to intervene

using a variety of strategies proven to effect increases in student achievement (Fielding,

Kerr, & Rosier 2007; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Waters, Marzano, and

McNulty (2004) offered the following advice for educational leaders at all levels:

At the school level, these practices encompass a guaranteed and viable

curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, parent and community

involvement, a safe and orderly environment, and collegiality and

professionalism. At the teacher level, they entail effective instructional strategies,

75
 classroom management, and classroom curriculum design. At the student level,

they entail a positive home environment, learned intelligence and background

knowledge, and motivation. (p. 50)

Recommendations for Future Study

As with all studies, this study can be used as the framework and inspiration for

future research regarding the implementation of RTI processes. Because this study

examined the experiences of school-based professionals at an elementary school in

Northwest Florida, future studies should examine other populations of interest to

determine the experience of school-based professionals implementing RTI processes in

different environments. Other populations include those outside of the geographic region

of the sample population and populations that differ in education level. Because this

study was conducted and data analyzed using qualitative methods, future research should

examine RTI processes from a quantitative or mixed-methods approach. Because this

study offered the experiences of school-based professionals with specific regard to the

impediments to the IST, future research should examine other aspects of school-based

professionals’ experiences regarding the IST and RTI implementation. Similarly, because

this study discovered impediments, future research should seek to eliminate certain

impediments and measure any significant gains in the efficiency or effectiveness of the

process upon the removal of such impediments.

Final Researcher Observations

This researcher’s data collection design deliberately focused on issues facing RTI

implementation. Consequently, impediments to RTI implementation overshadowed its

76
positive impacts. As the school psychologist corroborated, “We expected to have

problems with (RTI) . . . you don’t institute something as new and complicated as this

without having some problems . . . .” Still, this researcher observed many positive

responses from the faculty and staff as they endeavored to implement RTI with fidelity

and professionalism. This professionalism and heartfelt emotion are summed

wholeheartedly in the guidance counselor’s and ESE teacher’s enthusiastic statement that

we, as educators, strive to do “what’s best for the student!”

77
 REFERENCES

Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula [Electronic

version]. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 461-502.

Agnew, R., Matthews, S. K., Bucher, J., Welcher, A. N., & Keyes, C. (2008).

Socioeconomic status, economic problems, and delinquency [Electronic version].

Youth and Society, 40(2), 159-181.

Assessment and Accountability Act, Fl. Stat. §§ 1008.25, F.S. (2006).

Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E. (2004). Response to intervention:

Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing

and decreasing intensity [Electronic version]. The Journal of Special Education,

38(2), 66-79.

Barth, A. E., Stuebing, K. K., Anthony, J. L., Denton, C. A., Mathes, P. G., Fletcher,

J. M., et al. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for

identifying responder status [Electronic version]. Learning and Individual

Differences, 18(3), 296-307.

Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based instruction on

low achievers in five third-grade classrooms [Electronic version]. The Elementary

School Journal, 101(5), 529-585.

78
Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M., Griffin, S. M., & Deemer, S. A. (1998). Achievement-related

perceptions of children with learning disabilities and normal achievement: Group

and developmental differences [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 31(1), 91-105.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. B., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of

response to intervention: A snapshot of progress [Electronic version]. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 85-95.

Berlak, H. (2005). What’s in the No Child Left Behind Act and does it improve schools

and increase educational opportunity [Electronic version]?

Beyers, J. M., Loeber, R., Wikstrom, P. H., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2001). What

predicts adolescent violence in better-off neighborhoods [Electronic version]?

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(5), 369-382.

Bildt, A., Sytema, S., Kraijer, D., & Minderaa, R. (2005). Prevalence of pervasive

developmental disorders in children and adolescents with mental retardation

[Electronic version]. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(3), 275-286.

Boon, H. J. (2008). Risk or resilience? What makes a difference [Electronic version]?

The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 81-102.

Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (1994). Strategies for teaching students with learning and

behavior problems. Needham Heights, MS: Allyn and Bacon.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention [Electronic

version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 485-486.

79
Burns, M. K., Jacob, S., & Wagner, A. R. (2008). Ethical and legal issues associated with

using response-to-intervention to assess learning disabilities [Electronic version].

Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 263-279.

Carson, M. S. (2002). Perceptions of fourth grade teachers in a Northwest Florida

school district of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment 5 Tests: FCAT Reading

and FCAT Writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of West Florida,

Pensacola, Florida.

Class Size Reduction Requirements, Fl. Stat. §§ 1003.03 (4), F.S.(2003).

Clements, M. A., Reynolds, A. J., Hickey, E. (2004). Site-level predictors of children’s

school and social competence in the Chicago Child-Parent Centers [Electronic

version]. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(2), 273-296.

Compton, D. L. (2006). How should “unresponsiveness” to secondary intervention be

operationalized? It is all about the nudge [Electronic version]. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 170-173.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Underwood, P. S. (2007). A second chance in second

grade: The independent and cumulative impact of first- and second-grade reading

instruction and students’ letter-word reading skill growth [Electronic version].

Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 199-233.

Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (2000). Disproportionate representation in special

education: A synthesis and recommendations [Electronic version]. Journal of

Child and Family Studies, 9(2), 135-156.

80
Coutinho, M. J., Oswald, D. P., & Best, A. M. (2002). The influence of

sociodemographics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority

students as having learning disabilities [Electronic version]. Remedial and Special

Education, 23(1), 45-59.

Coutinho, M. J. & Oswald, K. P. (2005). State variation in gender disproportionality in

special education [Electronic version]. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 7-

15.

Crockett, J. B., & Gillespie, D. N. (2008). Getting ready for RTI: A principal’s guide to

response to intervention [Electronic version]. ERS Spectrum, 25(4), 1-9.

DeBray, E. H. (2005). NCLB accountability collides with the court-ordered

desegregation: The case of Pinellas County, Florida [Electronic version]. Peabody

Journal of Education, 80(2), 170-188.

Deshler, D. D., Mellard, D. F., Tollefson, J. M., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Research topics in

responsiveness to intervention: Introduction to the special series [Electronic

version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 483-484.

Dombrowski, S. C., Kamphaus, R. W., Barry, M., Brueggeman, A., Cavanagh, S.,

Devine, K., et al. (2006). The Solomon effect in learning disabilities diagnosis:

Can we learn from history [Electronic version]? School Psychology Quarterly,

21(4), 359-374.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoug-Zadeh, Z., &

Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read:

Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis [Electronic version].

Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287.

81
Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s

achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental

involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance [Electronic version]. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 723-730.

Evans, W. H., Evans, S. S., & Schmid, R. E. (1989). Behavior and instructional

management: An ecological approach. Needham Heights, MS: Allyn and Bacon.

Farkas, G. (2003). Racial disparities and discrimination in education: What do we know,

how do we know it, and what do we need to know [Electronic version]? Teachers

College Record, 105(6), 1119-1146.

Farmer, T. A. (2008, October). Unconsciously indigenous leadership: The role of

cognitive disequilibrium in preparing democratic educational leaders. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational

Administration, Orlando, FL.

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students: Catch-up

growth for those who are behind. Kennewick, WA: New Foundation Press.

Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., & Snyder, L. E. (2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and

response to intervention for children with reading problems [Electronic version].

Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 835-853.

Fisher, E. J. (2005). Black student achievement and the oppositional culture model

[Electronic version]. The Journal of Negro Education, 74(3), 201-210.

82
Flanagan, D. F., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of

response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability

identification: Learning from the tower of Babel [Electronic version]. Psychology

in the Schools, 43(7), 807-825.

Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative

approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some

questions and answers [Electronic version]. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304-331.

Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for

the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected

underachievement [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6),

545-552.

Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Stuebing,

K. K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of

discrepancy and low achievement definitions [Electronic version]. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 86(1), 6-23.

Florida Department of Education. (2004). Rule implementation brief [Electronic version].

Florida Department of Education. (2005). Florida school recognition program [Electronic

version].

Florida Department of Education. (2006a). 2006 Guide to calculating adequate yearly

progress (AYP) technical assistance paper [Electronic version].

Florida Department of Education. (2006b). Palm Coast AYP 0405b.ppt. [Microsoft

PowerPoint] [Electronic version].

83
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2003). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated

text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting

qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 61-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Foorman, B. R., & Ciancio, D. J. (2005). Screening for secondary intervention: Concept

and context [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 494-

499.

Forness, S. R., Keogh, B. K., MacMillan, D. L., Kavale, K. A., & Gresham, F. M. (1998).

What is so special about IQ? The limited explanatory power of cognitive abilities

in the real world of special education [Electronic version]. Remedial and Special

Education, 19(6), 315-322.

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz,

S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and

achievement scores are not sufficient [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 38(2), 98-108.

Fuchs, D., Deshler, D. D., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). National research center on learning

disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification issues

[Electronic version]. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 189-195.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for

practitioners, policymakers, and parents [Electronic version]. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57-61.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., Lipsey, M. W., & Roberts, P. H. (2001). Is

“Learning Disabilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis

of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label.

84
 Retrieved February 24, 2007, from the National Research Center on Learning

Disabilities Web site: http://www.nrcld.org/resources/ldsummit/index.shtml

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. L., Yen, L., & Svenson, E. (2004). Nonresponders:

How to find them? How to help them? What do they mean for special education?

[Electronic version]. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(1), 72-78.

Gadeyne, E., Ghesquiere, P., & Onghena, P. (2004). Psychosocial functioning of young

children with learning problems [Electronic version]. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(3), 510-521.

Gerber, M. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction

strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities [Electronic version].

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 516-524.

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special

education for students with reading difficulties (yet again) [Electronic version].

Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 99-108.

Goertz, M. A. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the

states. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 73-89.

Goertz, M. A., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and

accountability programs [Electronic version]. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 1-4.

Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. W., & Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban

America: It’s not justifiable for many [Electronic version]. The Journal of Special

Education, 27(4), 453-465.

85
Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield, S. A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on

the disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special

education [Electronic version]. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 42-52.

Gresham, F. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying

students as emotionally disturbed [Electronic version]. Education and Treatment

of Children, 28(4), 328-344.

Gresham, F. M., Macmillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low

achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different? [Electronic

version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 570-581.

Gresham, F. M., VanDerHeyden, A., & Witt, J. C. (2005). Response to intervention in the

identification of learning disabilities: Empirical support and future challenges.

Unpublished manuscript, University of California-Riverside. Retrieved January

02, 2007 from http://www.joewitt.org/Downloads/ Respons%20to

%20Intervention%%20MS%20Gresham%20%20Vanderheyden%20Witt.pdf

Hale, J. B., Kauffman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of

IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods

[Electronic version]. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 753-770.

Hallahan, D. P., Keller, C. E., Martinez, E. A., Byrd, E. S., Gelman, J. A., & Fan, X.

(2007). How variable are interstate prevalence rates of learning disabilities and

other special education categories? A longitudinal comparison [Electronic

version]. Exceptional Children, 73(2), 136-146.

86
Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2001). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives.

Retrieved February 24, 2007, from the National Research Center on Learning

Disabilities Web site: http://www.nrcld.org/resources/ldsummit/index.shtml

Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2000). Stanford Achievement Test Series (9th ed.)

[Stanford 9]. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.

Harris, A. D., & Herrington, C. D. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing

achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century [Electronic version].

American Journal of Education, 112(2), 209-239.

Hess, F. M. (2005). Commentary: Accountability policy and scholarly research

[Electronic version]. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice, 24(4), 53-

58.

Hill, K. G., Howell, J. C., Hawkins, J. D., & Pearson, S. R. (1999). Childhood risk factors

for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development

Project [Electronic version]. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

36(3), 300-325.

Hodder, I. (2003). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin,

& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 153-

175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and

children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the

published literature [Electronic version]. School Psychology Review, 29(1), 102-

119.

87
Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2003). Referral rates for intervention or assessment: A

meta-analysis of racial differences [Electronic version]. The Journal of Special

Education, 37(2), 67-80.

Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students

in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors

[Electronic version]. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 185-199.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2004). Pub. L. No.

108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 [Amending 20 U.S.C. § 1462 et seq.].

Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on

public schools [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). The effects of parental involvement on the academic achievement

of African American youth [Electronic version]. The Journal of Negro Education,

74(3), 260-275.

Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Alternative models of learning

disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions [Electronic

version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 569-572.

Jones, B. D., & Egley, R. J. (2006). Looking through different lenses: Teachers’ and

administrators’ views of accountability [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan,

87(10), 767-777.

Jones, L., & Menchetti, B. M. (2001). Identification of variables contributing to

definitions of mild and moderate mental retardation in Florida [Electronic

version]. Journal of Black Studies, 35(5), 619-634.

88
Kamps, D. M., & Greenwood, C. R. (2005). Formulating secondary-level reading

interventions [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 500-

509.

Kauffman, J. M. (1993). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of

children and youth. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan.

Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to

intervention the answer [Electronic version]? Journal of Learning Disabilities,

38(6), 553-562.

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and

don’t say: A critical analysis [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 33(3), 239-256.

Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention

and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative

proposal [Electronic version]. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 2-16.

Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, J. M., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFever, G. B. (2008). Response-to-

Intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of

specific learning disability identification [Electronic version]. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 31(3), 135-151.

Kavale, K. A., & Spaulding, L. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for

specific learning disability [Electronic version]? Learning Disabilities Research

and Practice, 23(4), 169-179.

89
Keels, M. (2008). Second generation effects on Chicago’s residential mobility program

on children’s participation in crime [Electronic version]. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 18(2), 305-352.

Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to

intervention models [Electronic version]. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4),

108-117.

Kort, T. L. (2008). Teachers making sense of data within a response to intervention

model: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2008).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 69, 10.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied

research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lebedina-Manzoni, M. (2004). To what students attribute their academic success and

unsuccess [Electronic version]. Education, 124(4), 699-709.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A

call for data analysis triangulation [Electronic version]. School Psychology

Quarterly, 22(4), 557-584.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of

techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and

beyond [Electronic version]. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 587-604.

Lloyd, J. W., & Hallahan, D. P. (2005). Going forward: How the field of learning

disabilities has and will contribute to education [Electronic version]. Learning

Disabilities Quarterly, 28(2), 133-136.

90
Lyon, G. R. (2005). Why scientific research must guide educational policy and

instructional practices in learning disabilities [Electronic version]. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 140-143.

Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Defining dyslexia, comorbidity,

teachers’ knowledge of language and reading [Electronic version]. Annals of

Dyslexia, 53, 1-14.

MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Bocian, K. M. (1998). Discrepancy between

definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical

investigation [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 314-

326.

MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally

defined by schools. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.),

Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287-333).

Mahwah, NJ: Grune and Stratton.

Maheady, L., Towne, R., Algozzine, B., Mercer, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1983). Minority

overrepresentation: A case for alternative practices prior to referral [Electronic

version]. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(4), 448-456.

Marshall, K. (2003). A principal looks back: Standards matter [Electronic version]. Phi

Delta Kappan, 85(2), 105-117.

Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention

outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns [Electronic version].

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 539-544.

91
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to

intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the

identification of individuals with learning disabilities [Electronic version].

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 525-531.

Mather, N., & Kauffman, N. (2006). Introduction to the special issue, part one: It’s about

the what, the how well, and the why [Electronic version]. Psychology in the

Schools, 43(7), 742-752.

Mayers, C. M. (2006). Public Law 1070-110 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Support

or threat to education as a fundamental right [Electronic version]? Education,

126(3), 449-462.

McDermott, P. A., Goldberg, M. M., Watkins, M. W., Stanley, J. L., & Glutting, J. J.

(2006). A nationwide epidemiologic modeling study of LD: Risk, protection, and

unintended impact [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3),

230-251.

McEneaney, J. E., Lose, M. K., & Schwartz, R. M. (2006). A transactional perspective on

reading difficulties and response to intervention [Electronic version]. Reading

Research Quarterly, 41(4), 117-128.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to

nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention

methods [Electronic version]. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445-463.

Mellard, D. F., Byrd, S. E., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J. M., & Boesche, L. (2004).

Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness-to-intervention

sites [Electronic version]. Learning Disabled Quarterly, 27(4), 243-256.

92
Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Mercer, A. R. (1996). Learning disabilities

definitions and criteria used by state education departments [Electronic version].

Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(4), 217-232.

Mercer, C. D., King-Sears, P., & Mercer, A. R. (1990). Learning disabilities definitions

and criteria used by state education departments [Electronic version]. Learning

Disabled Quarterly, 13(2), 141-152.

Mickelson, R. A., & Greene, A. D. (2006). Connecting pieces of the puzzle: Gender

differences in black middle school students’ achievement [Electronic version].

The Journal of Negro Education, 75(1), 34-49.

Milne, A., & Plourde, L. A. (2006). Factors of a low-SES household: What aids academic

achievement [Electronic version]? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3),

183-193.

Molfese, V. J., Modglin, A., & Molfese, D. L. (2003). The role of environment in the

development of reading skills: A longitudinal study of preschool and school-age

measures [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(1), 59-68.

Molina, B. S., & Pelham, W. E. (2001). Substance use, substance abuse, and SLD among

adolescents with a childhood history of ADHD [Electronic version]. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 34(4), 333-344.

Mortola, P. (2001). Sharing disequilibrium: A link between Gestalt Therapy Theory and

Child Development Theory [Electronic version]. Gestalt Review, 5(1), 45-56.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform (Publication No. ED 226 006). Washington

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

93
National Education Association. (2006). Issues in education: No child left behind/ESEA.

Retrieved July 13, 2006, from http://nea.org/esea/eseatesting.html

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to

intervention and learning disabilities [Electronic version]. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 28(4), 249-260.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2007). Responsiveness-to-

Intervention in the SLD determination process. Available from National Research

Center on Learning Disabilities web site, http://nrcld.org

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

O’Connor, C., & Fernandez, S. D. (2006). Race, class, and disproportionality:

Reevaluating the relationship between poverty and special education placement

[Electronic version]. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 6-11.

O’Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten

through third grade [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6),

532-538.

O’Day, B., & Killeen, M. (2002). Research on the lives of persons with disabilities: The

emerging importance of qualitative research methodologies [Electronic version].

Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13(1), 9-15.

Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning

disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process

[Electronic version]. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 883-888.

Olson, L. (2005). Florida gains flexibility on NCLB provisions [Electronic version].

Education Week, 24(38), 18-20.

94
Oswald, D. P. (2002). The new medical model and beyond: A response to Forness and

Kavale [Electronic version]. Behavioral Disorders, 27(2), 155-157.

Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999). Ethnic representation

in special education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic

variables [Electronic version]. Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 194-206.

Otaiba, S. A., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to

early literacy intervention: A review of the literature [Electronic version].

Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300-317.

Otaiba, S. A., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in

reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study [Electronic

version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 414-431.

Ozmon, H. A., & Craver, S. M. (1995). Philosophical foundations of education.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Parkison, P. (2009). Political economy and the NCLB regime: Accountability, standards,

and high-stakes testing [Electronic version]. Educational Forum, 73(1), 44-57.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Putnam, D. L. (2008). Guiding RTI system implementation: The Oregon experience

[Electronic version]. School Administrator, 65(8), 14-15.

Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students:

A critical history grounded in disability studies [Electronic version]. Educational

Researcher, 35(6), 18-23.

95
Reschly, D. J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention,

secondary intervention, and then what [Electronic version]? Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 38(6), 510-515.

Reschly, D. J., & Hosp, J. L. (2004, Fall). State SLD identification policies and practices

[Electronic version]. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197-213.

Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Robicheau, J. W., Haar, J. M., & Palladino, J. (2008, February). Special education: A

systematic approach to efficiency and effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New

Orleans, LA.

Robinson, K. L., Price, J. H., Thompson, C. L., & Schmalzried, H. D. (1998). Rural

junior high school students’ risk factors for and perceptions of teen-age

parenthood [Electronic version]. The Journal of School Health, 68(8), 334-339.

Roscigno, V. J., Tomaskovic-Devey, D. T., & Crowley, M. (2006). Education and the

inequalities of place [Electronic version]. Social Forces, 84(4), 2121-2146.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K.

Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials

(pp. 259-309). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryder, R. J., Burton, J. L., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal study of direct instruction

effects from first through third grades [Electronic version]. The Journal of

Educational Research, 99(3).

96
Sabornie, E. J., Evans, C., & Cullinan, D. (2006). Comparing characteristics of high-

incidence disability groups: A descriptive review [Electronic version]. Remedial

and Special Education, 27(2), 95-104.

Samuels, C. A. (2008). Response to intervention sparks interest, questions [Electronic

version]. The Education Digest, 27(20), 1-2.

Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L. M., Schatscheider, C., & Sweeney, J. M. (2008). Reducing

the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for

classroom teachers versus direct interventions for children [Electronic version].

Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 346-359.

Schatschneider, C., Wagner, R. K., & Crawford, E. C. (2008). The importance of

measuring growth in response to intervention model: Testing a core assumption

[Electronic version]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 308-315.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the

problems of identification of learning disabilities [Electronic version]. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 25(3), 155-168.

Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). Discrepancy

compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability: Results from the

Connecticut longitudinal study [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 25(10), 639-648.

Speece, D. L. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some

thoughts on screening children for secondary interventions [Electronic version].

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 487-493.

97
Stanovich, K. E. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue

to make the learning disabilities field a pseudoscience [Electronic version]?

Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 103-106.

Steubing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., &

Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading

disabilities: A meta-analysis [Electronic version]. American Educational Research

Journal, 39(2), 469-518.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tauer, S. M., & Tate, P. M. (1998). Growth of reflection in teaching: Reconciling the

models [Electronic version]. Teaching Education, 9(2), 143-153.

U. S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Questions and answers on response to

intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Retrieved February 21,

2009, from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,AaCorner,8,

U. S. Department of Education. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-

031). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U. S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for education for handicapped

children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal

Register, 42, G1082-G1085.

Van den Broeck, W. (2002). The misconception of the regression-based discrepancy

operationalization in the definition and research of learning disabilities

[Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(3), 194-204.

98
Vanauker-Ergle, K. A. (2003). Barriers to low achievers’ success in the elementary

classroom as perceived by teachers: A qualitative study. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Vann, M., Schubert, S. R., & Rogers, D. (2000). The Big Bayou Association: An

alternative education program for middle-school, at-risk juveniles. Preventing

School Failure, 45(1), 31-36.

Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., et al.

(2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties

[Electronic version]. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 338-345.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a

means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities [Electronic

version]. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-409.

Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific

reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades

[Electronic version]? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to

remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-

achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability [Electronic version].

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223-238.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to

intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without

reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade

99
 interventions [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157-

169.

Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). Serving students at the margins

[Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 12-17.

Waters, T. J., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years

of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. A

working paper (Report ED481972) [Electronic version].

Waters, T. J., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks [Electronic

version]. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48-51.

Williamson, P., McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., & Rentz, T. (2006). Educating students with

mental retardation in general education classrooms [Electronic version].

Exceptional Children, 72(3), 347-360.

Willis, J. O., & Dumont, R. (2006). And never the twain shall meet: Can response to

intervention and cognitive assessment be reconciled [Electronic version]?

Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 901-908.

Wodrich, D. L., Spencer, M. L. S., & Daley, K. B. (2006). Combining RTI and

psychoeducational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise [Electronic

version]. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 797-806.

Wu, F., & Qi, S. (2006). Longitudinal effects of parenting on children’s academic

achievement in African American families [Electronic version]. The Journal of

Negro Education, 75(3), 415-429.

100
Ysseldyke, J. (2005). Assessment and decision making for students with learning

disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets [Electronic version]? Learning

Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 125-129.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Richey, L., & Graden, J. (1982). Declaring students

eligible for learning disability services: Why bother with the data [Electronic

version]? Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(1), 37-44.

Ysseldyke, J., Nelson, J. R., Christenson, S., & Johnson, D. R. (2004). What we know

and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with

disabilities [Electronic version]. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 75-96.

Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Minority representation in special education

[Electronic version]. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 180-187.

Zirkel, P. A., & Krohn, N. (2008). RTI after IDEA: A survey of state laws [Electronic

version]. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 71-73.

101
APPENDIXES

102
 Appendix A

Informed Consent for Proposed RTI Research

103
 Informed Consent for Proposed RTI Research

Title of Research: Issues Regarding Implementation of Response-To-Intervention in

a Northwest Florida Title 1 Elementary School: A Qualitative
Study
I. Federal and university regulations require that researchers obtain signed consent for
participation in research involving human participants. After reading statements in
section II through IV, please indicate your consent to participate by signing and
dating the signature page.
II. Statement of Procedure: Thank you for your interest in this research project. This
research is being conducted by a Doctorial Candidate at the University of West
Florida and is a critical part of the dissertation process. The procedures and purpose
of the research, and confidentiality safeguards have already been explained to you
in detail. This stage of the research involves your participation in one or more of the
following: two focus groups and follow-up, selective, individual interviews. If you
have any questions or concerns regarding this research project, please contact Dr.
D. Kaczynski at the Department of Juvenile studies at the University of West
Florida at (850) 474-2618.
III. Potential Risks of the Study: No identified immediate or long-range physical,
psychological, social, economic, or legal risks to participants exist in the proposed
area and location of this research.
IV. Potential Benefits of the Study:
(1) Information gained concerning RTI may be used to improve its
implementation throughout the district’s elementary schools.
V. Individual experiences in the focus groups or individual interviews may improve
each participant’s understanding of the RTI process.
VI. Statement of Consent: I certify that I have read and fully understand the statement
of Procedure given above and agree to participate in this research project. I give

104
 consent voluntarily and understand that I may discontinue participation at any time.
I will receive a copy of this consent form.

Signature Page

Participants Name (Please Print) Signature Date

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

105
____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

____________________________ _____________________________
____________

106
 Appendix B

Focus Group #1 Guiding Questions

106
 Focus Group for Teachers
Questioning Route
Based on Krueger & Casey (2000) pg. 38-67

Opening: 1. Welcome everyone, thanks for volunteering to participate.

Please help yourselves to the refreshments at anytime as this is
an informal gathering.
2. Regarding this research, focusing on IST implementation, you
people are the best possible data sources since you are the ones
in the field. Your participation is critical.
3. The success of today’s information exchange depends upon
your willingness to share your experiences regarding IST
implementing at Edgewater.
4. When it comes to IST, we are all equal as IST is a very new
process.
5. My hope is we will all have fun, learn about IST, and return to
our jobs with a greater understanding of IST.
6. This focus group will include only teachers. The next group
will include guidance, psychologist, CC, and staffing specialist
and school facilitators (if available). The reasons for separating
the school in to two groups are explained in Chapter III but, in
brief, allow data collection from two very different
perspectives, and help keep the length of each focus group
reasonable.
7. Reminder of confidentiality precautions (K-2 & 3-5), also, we
are here to exchange information and experiences, not to point
fingers at individuals. I do not want our conversations here
today to leave anyone with ill will towards another faculty
member.

107
 8. How many of you are experiencing the first year in
a classroom?
9. How many of you are not first year teachers, but

this is your first year in this County?

Introductory: 1. As you recall, the primary purpose of this research is to provide
information about how the implementation of IST at Edgewater
is progressing, not about how successful the interventions were
for each targeted student.
2. This distinction is critical.
3. I want to know how well the process of implementing IST
intervention is either working or not working in your
classroom:
a. training,
b. materials,
c. which strategies to implement and when,
d. time to provide interventions in classroom,
e. additional assistance available,
f. parental involvement,
g. or whatever,
4. put on flip chart and hang on wall.
5. How did you first learn about IST?
Transition: 1. How was the startup process like for you?
2. Please find the notepaper in front of you in case you need it.
3. Now, go back to the beginning of the year, think about the
children in your classrooms, and identify the ones that simply
could not function academically at an appropriate level and are
now in IST. Not PMP.
4. Most of you, but maybe not all, have them. Take a minute,
identify them in your mind, and jot a couple of names on the
notepaper in front of you. As always, feel free to talk among

108
 yourselves. Remember, students must be in IST, not just PMP.
5. (Pause) Got them? OK.
6. Now, please do the same for children who have behavioral
issues that are so disruptive they are now in IST.
7. (Pause) Got them? OK.
8. OK. Now, you may have two groups of children in IST.
Academic or behavioral. Not everyone will have students in
each group. That’s OK.
9. Lets move on to some key questions about IST implementation.
Key 1. Think about the children in your lists and share
Questions: what was particularly frustrating about
implementing IST services in your classroom? See
flip charts for ideas.
2. Again, think about the children in your lists and

share what was particularly helpful about

implementing IST services in your classroom? See
flip chart for ideas.
3. Is your classroom any different since the

implementation of IST? Good or bad.

109
 Ending 1. Please reflect on all the IST implementation issues we have
Questions: touched upon today. Now, please find the red and green slips of
paper on your table that are stapled together. Of all the concerns
and satisfactions of IST implementation discussed today, I
would like you to make two choices.
2. Use the red paper to write down your most serious concern
regarding IST implementation and green to record your most
satisfying experience with IST implementation. Feel free to
discuss these among yourselves if this will help. Please take a
couple of minutes to complete this activity.
3. This was a very thorough discussion and I appreciate your
participation and I hope it was as productive for you as it was
for me. I will, of course make transcripts of today’s event
available for your review in the next few weeks.
4. If you do think of something you wish you would have said or
simply were uncomfortable commenting in front of the group,
just put it on paper and slip it in my mailbox. No identification
required.
5. Finally, you are a fine, professional faculty and I couldn’t ask
for a better group to help with this research. I have not had
much of a life the last few years and would love to put the paper
behind me.
6. Thank you everyone.

110
 Appendix C

Focus Group #2 Guiding Questions

111
 Focus Group #2
Questioning Route

1. Could you walk me through the Tier process of IST? Please start at the very

beginning with Tier 1.

2. Thank you. Now we are at Tier 2, is this where we identify a child?

3. Does the parent have to sign any paperwork at Tier 2?

4. Is there a set length of time for Tier 2?

5. If Tier 2 fails, or at least the interventions are not successful in providing for

academic improvement, do we then go to Tier 3 and if so, is a parent’s

signature required for this next step?

6. Do you have a special time when you schedule IST meetings with parents and

teachers?

7. During Tier 3, do you consider any kind of formal testing for a child?

8. Now we are at Tier 4 because all else has failed?

9. Do you think we are providing the teachers with as much training as we

should?

10. At the previous focus group, parental participation was a big concern. Do you

also find this to be the case?

112
 Appendix D

Follow-Up Interviews Guiding Questions

113
 Follow-Up Interviews

Guiding Questions

1. Let us review the categories affecting RTI implementation developed during the

first two focus groups. Then, we will discuss some categories that were common

to both groups.

2. Both focus groups identified a lack of parental involvement as a priority issue

affecting IST implementation. Have you had any experience with uncooperative

parents?

3. Also, both focus groups identified a lack of sufficient time to implement

intervention strategies and provide the necessary data to support progress or lack

of progress that IST meetings require. What experiences have you had providing

interventions and collecting data for IST meetings?

4. Finally, both groups felt coordinating IST meetings with teachers, parents, and

district personnel is difficult. Would you please elaborate on your experiences in

attempting to schedule these meetings and what kind of success you have had.

114
 Appendix E

NVivo 7™ Data Table

115
 NVivo 7™ Data Table

Free Node Sources References

Focus Group Focus Group Follow-Up
#1 #2 Interviews
Parental Participation 9 14 5 28
Resources 12 3 0 15
Assistance 8 0 2 10
Strategies to
Implement 8 1 1 10
Time 3 3 1 7
RTI Documentation 2 3 4 9
Training on RTI 5 4 0 9
RTI Characteristics 0 0 6 6
Budget Not Used Not Used Not Used 0
Psychologist Not Used Not Used Not Used 0
RTI Timeline Not Used Not Used Not Used 0
Teacher's Experience
and Knowledge Not Used Not Used Not Used 0

116